Tracking Earth's Future via Current Events, etc.

[jmoz]

haha, I have more of a problem with the contradictory notion of a God with omnipotence and the existence of free will. And more subsequent problems involving moral culpability and such.

But to the topic being discussed, Artood, are you saying you believe morality exists outside of us or just clarifying the position stated in the bible of god being the source of morality? You don't think people can be moral outside of dictated moral code in the bible?

[Coco Pops]

I believe you can be moral and lead a moral life without being religious

[Gatefan1976]

LOL!!

Welcome to HELL.

[jmoz]

LOL!!

Welcome to HELL.

Been there...done that. haha

I also have a problem with the notion of infinity being imposed on God. To me, the concept of infinity is imposed under some contextual mathematical framework. For example, with the natural numbers {1,2,3,4,....}. This set of numbers go on towards infinity. But there are other frameworks where infinity comes about. However, in all such mathematical frameworks, there is no 'highest' notion of infinity from what I know. In fact, I think Cantor provided a proof against such a thing after developing the framework. As in, there is no ultimate "infinity".

So is there a certain framework for this notion of infinity being used in the context of God, or is the notion of infinity being using with regards to God just some stand-in for a set of descriptive words for God? And are those words mathematical or something else?

[Womble]

If our views are futile, why hold them at all?

I dare you to try and not hold any views. Double-dare you!

[P-90_177]

I dare you to try and not hold any views. Double-dare you!

I keep dropping my views, but only accidentally.... I trip a lot.

[Falcon Horus]

I keep dropping my views, but only accidentally.... I trip a lot.

And do they fall to pieces when you drop them?

[aretood2]

That is a circular argument, and one contradicted by the Bible itself. We are not "ignorant peasants" we, like God are AWARE of good and Evil, just like God. God can no longer claim absolute authority here as you posit -by his own words-. This is no "logic trick" or anything else, it is scripture, almost the oldest scripture we have access to in the Judeo-Christian faith structure. We ate the fruit, we became aware, we were punished for it. You either accept the fact that we are just as aware of good and evil as God, or we were punished while remaining ignorant with no attempt to correct our behaviour besides "do as I say"

Not sure what you are talking about. I only talked about God and you seem to be talking about man...

Here is the crux of the Dichotomy of Christianity.
To meditate, to learn, to take lessons, ALL these things are, erm, "good" and I would agree with you there 100%.
HOWEVER.
You as a flawed person have no right to determine these things, only God can, and "just taking what is good" implies you know better than God. Just do what you are told, M'kay?

But...that's what God said to do...

No, you don't.
Is the Bible -as a complete document- the pipeline to God, or is it not? If your answer is no, then some of the faithful would call you a heathen for even suggesting it is not.
Why should you be allowed to eat "pork" when another Christian cannot? Are they less or more faithful than you?

If I recall correctly, Jesus said "I am the way" not "The bible is the way." I'd call those Christians heretics and apostates in return for suggesting that the bible is the way. You can't contradict the words issued by the Son of God and then call others heathens because they call you out on it.

As to your last sentence, I am having trouble following you.

So you are denying the Bible?
We are *according to the Bible* like God in having awareness of Good and Evil, a state of being that we were punished for. So, We have an awareness we were punished for, but have no right to exercise that awareness?

I never said we weren't aware.

We did not "get" a moral compass, we TOOK one, and were punished for it. Here is where this system fails, it assumes we were given things, and we were not.

No where in the text is it called punishment. It's a consequence. If I cut myself I'll bleed. The bleeding isn't punishment, just a consequence. Once Adam and Eve knew what was right and wrong they did the wrong thing by not owning up to their deed. But you don't need a moral compass to do what you are told either, they were told not to eat but they ate. Either way, you're objection doesn't seem to stand on this point if you ask me.

If Adam and Eve NEVER took of the tree, and Cain killed Abel, is Cain wrong?
He has NO knowledge of Good or Evil, He has no Knowledge of Law. He just killed Abel because he did.
Is he Evil?

The thing about hypotheticals is that it only works if it can conceivably happen. I can't conceivably see that happening given the circumstances so the hypothetical can't be answered.

So what?
We know Man makes mistakes and is imperfect, that's hardly an issue. Did any of them "flood the planet" to cast their personal judgement?
Hang, on, that's ok because it was mandated..... by God............

So it was illegal for God to flood the world? Who made that law? Who's above God? Do you not fumigate a house after it's infested? And yet you didn't create the pests that infest it.

And Strict theocracy is all about denying personal responsibility, "GOD DECREED IT SO", yet it is not God who kills the "infidel" it is a murderous (WO)MAN who does it, but that's A-OK, because God decreed it to be so, so they are no criminal by man's "flawed rules", because man has a flawed concept of good and evil.

Are you talking about a theocracy lead by men or by God?

What do you THINK I mean?

Your original comment seemed to imply that God's existence or health at some meta level was contingent in people believing and/or worshiping him. That is what I thought you meant.

God, the Christian god is the definition of what his followers determine is a god. God did not create "Christian definitions" MAN did and by your own perspective, your definition does not matter.

A nice definitive statement. I want definitive proof. Prove that God didn't create Christian definitions. Prove that your belief trumps mine. Or restate your statement as a belief.

What you are mistaking here is relevance and power.

And where did I do this exactly?

We invoke the........ "old gods" every day, weather we mean to or not. Our days are Nordic, Our months are Greeco/Roman, our fellow planets are Roman, our Oaths are Greek, and so on and so on. If we Eliminated the phrase "Jesus Christ" from our common lexicon, most people would not even consider anything biblical "in passing" for their entire lives.
What then would be the relevance of your God?

You mean to say remove things like "Bless you" "God Speed" "Turn the other cheek" "Sins of the father..." "Eye for an eye" "God Willing" "Pray"? Things like believing that a grown man shouldn't have any relationship of a sexual nature with a 13 year old? Believing that it is wrong to leave an infant on the side of a hill just because he doesn't measure up to society's opinion of beauty or perfection? Did Women's suffrage come from the far east or the Judeo-Christian west? What major faction in history other than the slaves ever protested against slavery (Such as the Abolitionists)? Ideas like the finality of the Universe? Scientific knowledge and literacy preserved through the European dark ages that would otherwise have been lost to the ages until an imperialistic power from the middle or far east would come to turn Europeans into slaves thus severely altering history itself?

Perhaps you mean like things throughout history such as Thomas Jefferson leading prayers in the Capital building? Or things like the politics mixed in with religious ideas from the religious right asserting Jefferson's actions as a justification? Or the millions that wept for the death of the Pope? The hundreds of Millions that travel to Mecca?

Even ignoring the historical influence, the stories the literature the art etc...If suddenly that one pair of words were to disappear as you say, it is an act of total denial or reality to claim that God or anything biblical would not be considered by most people.

So unless you are denying quite a lot of things, what do you mean?

So, what are the Angels?
Is Zeus and his ilk Angels as well?

Who knows.

I have no Idea how this is relevant to what I was saying.

Western society's present difinition of what a god is does not match with what non-Abrahamic religions posited in the past. The Judeo-Christian use of the word is different in practice than that by the Roman or Norse use of the word. By definition, nothing else can be a God, there can't be anyother.

[P-90_177]

[COLOR="#000080"]

If I recall correctly, Jesus said "I am the way" not "The bible is the way." I'd call those Christians heretics and apostates in return for suggesting that the bible is the way. You can't contradict the words issued by the Son of God and then call others heathens because they call you out on it.

I suppose there's a problem in the way Christianity goes about its teachings in the sense that the Bible are two very different books. By all rights Christians should really only follow the New Testament (As it follows the life of Christ). Indeed I posed this question to my mother who is devout in her faith and told me that she lends very little credence in the Old Testament's teachings, while she does believe in the stories told in one form or another. When I asked in regards to the change of tone between the two books and the way God can appear quite wrathful in one and forgiving to a fault in the other, she explained that as Jesus was God's incarnation upon the Earth, he learnt that humanity was a flawed creation, but understood that there was both good and bad in each of us. As Jesus loved humanity so too did God, and learnt to forgive because God realised that even he suffered from the same weaknesses when he was in the form of the son.

In essence, God changed his mind in, and therefore the rules and laws he laid down in the Old Testament should not be treated as such. So as you say Tood, when Jesus said "I am the Way" he was effectively saying only his specific teachings should be followed.
If only more Christians actually realised that.

[Gatefan1976]

Not sure what you are talking about. I only talked about God and you seem to be talking about man...

Err, you brought in the idea of an absolute monarch dude and made that very human comparison. I just ran with it. As to why I am talking about man.... Man is central to this discussion.

But...that's what God said to do...

Umm, what are you talking about?
God never said "reflect on the nature of yourself, and how you relate to the world" God said nothing on the issue.

If I recall correctly, Jesus said "I am the way" not "The bible is the way." I'd call those Christians heretics and apostates in return for suggesting that the bible is the way. You can't contradict the words issued by the Son of God and then call others heathens because they call you out on it.

And yet, it happens every day, doesn't it?
Mathematicly speaking, your far more enlightened viewpoint is hardly in the majority, is it?

As to your last sentence, I am having trouble following you.

You just used it dude

I never said we weren't aware.

Ahh, so we are aware, but as our awareness is "flawed", we should not act on it?

No where in the text is it called punishment. It's a consequence. If I cut myself I'll bleed. The bleeding isn't punishment, just a consequence. Once Adam and Eve knew what was right and wrong they did the wrong thing by not owning up to their deed. But you don't need a moral compass to do what you are told either, they were told not to eat but they ate. Either way, you're objection doesn't seem to stand on this point if you ask me.

What kind of Double stepping nonsense is this?
1: Adam and Eve had - at the time of the "nefarious deed"- had no concept of right or wrong.
2: God stated "because you did X, I will make sure Y happens" If you cut yourself and you bleed, that is a consequence of a known action, Adam and Eve would have had no idea of consequences, until they were imposed on them.
3: Imposition of a arbitrary consequence is the act of a parent, therefore a punishment. I am -amazed- that people wish to "blame humans" for their actions but give God a pass for his on the notion of "he works in mysterious ways".

Your objection is what makes no sense.

The thing about hypotheticals is that it only works if it can conceivably happen. I can't conceivably see that happening given the circumstances so the hypothetical can't be answered.

Keep that statement in mind.

So it was illegal for God to flood the world? Who made that law? Who's above God? Do you not fumigate a house after it's infested? And yet you didn't create the pests that infest it.

Good question, WHO is above God?
At any rate, the question is not *weather* God should or should not do XYZ, it's weather we have the right to JUDGE God based on "his actions". Thou shalt not kill, (unless it's me, cause I get a pass, because I'm GOD!!) We have a word for people who lay down rules and refuse to follow them.

Are you talking about a theocracy lead by men or by God?

Well, unless you are expecting God to come to Earth, or for us to believe people who claim they are God, that's pretty obvious.

Your original comment seemed to imply that God's existence or health at some meta level was contingent in people believing and/or worshiping him. That is what I thought you meant.

No, not health or well-being, exactly what I said, relevance.

A nice definitive statement. I want definitive proof. Prove that God didn't create Christian definitions. Prove that your belief trumps mine. Or restate your statement as a belief.

Oh HO!!!
Prove to me that just because you hold a definition of "god" that my belief is wrong.
Better yet, prove that *either* of our definitions means a darn thing.
Careful here Tood, you are sounding like an Atheist

And where did I do this exactly?

By saying that even if God was irrelevant, he would still hold power over the wind and rain.
Feel free to check for yourself.

You mean to say remove things like "Bless you" "God Speed" "Turn the other cheek" "Sins of the father..." "Eye for an eye" "God Willing" "Pray"?

Except for "sins of the Father", all of those terms predate Christianity. Possibly Judaism, but I cannot back that up.

Things like believing that a grown man shouldn't have any relationship of a sexual nature with a 13 year old?

Ask one of the Priests who got "moved around" and now force the Pontiff to apologise for child rape of Alter boys and others and say the church failed it's followers. 1000 years ago when we lived to 40-odd, 13 was probably a fine age to bear children, not today.

Believing that it is wrong to leave an infant on the side of a hill just because he doesn't measure up to society's opinion of beauty or perfection?

Sure, that was wrong.

Did Women's suffrage come from the far east or the Judeo-Christian west? What major faction in history other than the slaves ever protested against slavery (Such as the Abolitionists)? Ideas like the finality of the Universe? Scientific knowledge and literacy preserved through the European dark ages that would otherwise have been lost to the ages until an imperialistic power from the middle or far east would come to turn Europeans into slaves thus severely altering history itself?

Are your freaking kidding me??
Here we see the self righteous nature of Christianity in FULL force. I guess you just pass over the Age of Enlightenment, or claim ownership of it? Do you want to claim ownership of the classical thinkers as well?

Perhaps you mean like things throughout history such as Thomas Jefferson leading prayers in the Capital building? Or things like the politics mixed in with religious ideas from the religious right asserting Jefferson's actions as a justification? Or the millions that wept for the death of the Pope? The hundreds of Millions that travel to Mecca?

Jefferson was no "Church patriot". He may have believed in the value of the teachings of Christ, but he was also the Author of the separation of Church and State. First and Foremost he was a DEIST, not a Christian, or a Muslim, or a Pagan. He had his OWN views, views that would get him Ostracised in any right wing "church" today, So no, don't give me that garbage. Crying for the Pope, or going to Mecca? That's a personal thing, unless you feel that NOT crying for the Pope, or not going to or facing Mecca when you pray is a failure of faith.

Even ignoring the historical influence, the stories the literature the art etc...If suddenly that one pair of words were to disappear as you say, it is an act of total denial or reality to claim that God or anything biblical would not be considered by most people.

Let me give you a clue here, Christianity is no longer the "major power" in religion for the majority of the world, and the majority of people simply do not care about your god, or even know of him, or care about him. The only reason why Christianity even holds any sway is because it is a "western concept" (LOL) and has MONEY backing it.

So unless you are denying quite a lot of things, what do you mean?

I am denying nothing. "My Gods" are even more impotent than yours in the grand scheme of things, but I don't really care about that.

Who knows.

Who cares?

Western society's present difinition of what a god is does not match with what non-Abrahamic religions posited in the past.

Actually, it does.

The Judeo-Christian use of the word is different in practice than that by the Roman or Norse use of the word. By definition, nothing else can be a God, there can't be anyother.[/COLOR]

And here we go back to the beginning, accept a definition or we have no common ground. We cannot even discuss the concept unless we bow to Christianity's will and accept their definitions.

[SGalisa]

(With Lucifer, his issue was free will and desire to exalt himself above God's own throne.. in reality, from an outside observer's perspective -- here is a thought ----
"hey, Lucifer, cherub angel-- you were ABOVE the throne if you (Lucifer) were actually guarding *over* it -- as such. That wasn't good enough for yah? Ruling on a throne chair and handing out commands was your desire, just to feel what it felt like from "God's" POV...? Was that it (the problem)? And with Adam and Eve -- all they had to do was obey a simple command -- do NOT eat from one specific tree in the garden, lest "danger" will result. Regardless of how this stuff is written in the Bible, the basic stuff is easy enough to understand in both situations.)

Which version are we talking about here? Ezekiel and Tyre, or Isaiah and Babylon?

Reference here was recalling the dual prophetic parallel of the *morning star*s famous five "I will"s in Isaiah 14:13-14 (so that is with the prophecy against Babylon). (Morning Star is another name for Lucifer as an anointed cherub). I can see where the Babylonian stuff is mentioned, but also the other stuff -- it's ref is repeatedly noted in many books researching the angelic hierarchy and history of Lucifer's very existence from being the highest anoint angel, to the leader of deception as the serpent, the devil, and a bunch of other names.

So, is too much being read into that section or does it switch gears by suddenly mentioning Lucifer as the *Morning Star*..? And either way, who are we to state one way or the other? ...I merely mentioned it as I was taught what it meant. If this is wrong, I stand corrected, but only "God" can correct us -- and since He's sort of invisible at the moment, that is going to be difficult to prove.

Perhaps we are no more than God's cosmic reality channel.
Interesting thought

Maybe, but when serious illness and physical pains occur, they hurt! Those are very real and not something imagined! There are times when I have to rationalize separating events experienced in my dream-sleep (nightmares) and waking moments. Things perceived in my dream-sleep are not real, because my waking self is back to where it was prior to that sleep state.
(PS----I hate to dream. Most are horrid nightmares or too weird.)

I'd really appreciate it if someone would please explain what a holographic universe is, because I cannot with all of my 6 senses figure this cosmic one-sided view out, when we (all of us) are 3-dimensional and can see other galaxies being 3-D. The other galaxies just seem to be flattened disc shapes, like a frisbie is shaped, but that all has to do with the speed of energy swirling around, sort of like a how a tornado spins, but on a flatter scale. Remember, what Hubble has shown us thru its lenses is only what we can see -- not what energy and physical things that are so tiny, it takes a different lense to grasp the full view of
the universe around us.

{Got to reply to the rest sometime in the future.}

[SGalisa]

Originally Posted by SGalisa

Those of us (and I'm including myself from my BC years, that is, before understanding on the prophetic Messianic level), who doNOT understand the Bible will NEVER EVER comprehend Jesus EVER in ANY of this, because we (our brains) are NOT wired to think that way.

so God designed so as not to believe in Jesus?

Before you (or anyone else) ever heard of the Bible and its contents, including Jesus, how could (generic) you understand Jesus or what he lived for if you never heard of him?

Hearing of Jesus is one thing. Comprehending what he did is a completely different realm of reality especially if what the Messianic believers said is true. Afterall, to many folks reading the Hebrew scriptures, the information there is mostly like reading a history book of do's and don't's and battles waged in between (which to me, history used to be a boring topic.. I tried to avoid studying it in school as much as I could..! seriously! =)

If we look at history from before the time Jesus of Nazareth was born, everyone living in the B.C. eras had no clue as to when or who Jesus might be, because he wasn't born in human form yet!

Even when the Messianic believers of the Hebrew scriptures studied the prophecies about their future Messiah while Jesus actually walked upon the earth in human form, it took a verbal confirmation from Jesus to physically say that "Yes" he was the one they were looking for (he answered in a rather round about lengthy way, tho specifically for John the Baptist/baptizer.

Spoiler:

Matthew 11:3-6, Living Bible (TLB)

Matt. 11:3) "Are you really the one we are waiting for, or shall we keep on looking?"

4) Jesus told them, "Go back to John and tell him about the miracles you've seen me do-
5) the blind people I've healed, and the lame people now walking without help, and the cured lepers, and the deaf who hear, and the dead raised to life; and tell him about my preaching the Good News to the poor.
6) Then give him this message, 'Blessed are those who don't doubt me.'"

I suppose there's a problem in the way Christianity goes about its teachings in the sense that the Bible are two very different books. By all rights Christians should really only follow the New Testament (As it follows the life of Christ).

I used to follow that way of believing anything in the Bible. Even tho the Catholic Church does read both halves of the Bible during Mass (Church services), most Catholics tended to pay more attention to what Jesus said over everything else in the Bible. To me with my limited understanding of "spiritual things", everything else was irrelevant and just stuffed in there as *extras*.

Anywho, before the "Jesus" half of Biblical times, I knew about some of the more ancient Bible stories, but never read them from the Bible. It wasn't until I met my hubby, and many years after that I finally read and learned what was in the "first half" of the Bible (Hebrew scriptures). Even tho some of the more expert Bible scholars had some very interesting books about the Hebrew portion of the scriptures, it wasn't really until we met up with several Messianic believers, where I learned that both halves really do mesh with each other. More on that later.

In essence, God changed his mind in, and therefore the rules and laws he laid down in the Old Testament should not be treated as such.

Actually, God didn't change his mind. There are some passages in the scriptures where it states that "the LORD God" might change his mind, but since "He" is already aware of how events will pan out into the future, "His" mind never really changed.

Maybe the scriptures are written that way to tease us into thinking there is a conflict of God's own mind/heart, etc. However, in reality, there *never* was a conflict... He knew from the very beginning "such and such" event would occur. Was it to confuse us, or just keep Lucifer/the devil on his proverbial toes in trying to figure out "God's" next move?

This is how the battle between "God" and Satan was described to me--
The Bible is full of enormous amounts of data that when fitted together makes a giant jigsaw puzzle. The devil always knew that somewhere a "seed" would come between him and almighty God. For centuries, the devil tried to destroy or discredit Israel's side of Abraham's "seed" (or descendants). Yet, in each encounter, the LORD was one step ahead of the devil's destructive plans.

Once the Genesis 3:15 prophecy was fulfilled with the mysterious "seed" being born as Jesus,
the serpent/devil tried to have King Herod go crazy with Herod thinking a child "King" was going to overthrow Herod's throne, so the babies within toddler years and under were all ordered to be murdered. However, Jesus and his earthly guardian parents fled to Egypt for roughly seven years. After they returned to Israel, Jesus grew up and again, the serpent/devil tried to seduce Jesus or have him killed by the mobs. Did the *serpent* know that Genesis 3:15 might translate as a crucifixion scene, with some symbolic reference there of the devil's deeds turning into damaged goods afterwards? IDK.

Once Jesus fulfilled the Hebrew prophecies about the "suffering servant" (which most Jewish people thruout history see that as themself, not Jesus) -- the crucifixion prophecy was fulfilled (Psalm 22, especially 22:14-18 "they have pierced my hands and feet" along with Isaiah 52:13-15 thru Isa.53), and the devil has been ever since chasing after the church to discredit its believers and destroy Israel. Israel's future did not end in 70 C.E. -- it continues as its (Jewish) descendants returned to the land, and that land became an official nation among other nations, on May 14, 1948.

Ever since 1948 (C.E.), the survival of Israel has been important, because the future prophecies about Israel haven't yet finished yet. That is where the Hebrew prophet books come into view, and the book of Revelation, along with whatever Jesus said about his "return" -- where every eye will see "the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory" (Matthew 24:30 --NIV, printed copyright 1978).

Sidenote----

Spoiler:

Interesting piece about that Matt. 24:30-31 prophecy, I almost read it as a post-rapture event, but Matt.24:31 records--

"And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other." (NIV)

If Jesus' chosen flock is scattered both across the heavens (plural) and also *obviously* on the earth, that means some of the believers are already somewhere in the heavens (and I don't think it means living on the space station, the moon, or Mars, even tho it could). So, for all the arguments I've read on other websites about the Rapture, there just might be at least a mid-trib Rapture event or earlier.

Now, back to current 20th-21st century C.E. events...
Anyways, as all of us living now can see or hear on the news that Jewish Israel's very existence is in danger, this is where the scriptures are in prophecy. Once again, the serpent is trying to destroy God's *opportunity* to preserve the Jews (of Israel's ancestry), and wipe them off the earth BEFORE Revelation 19:19 shows up on the historical timeline, with the armies and kings of the earth trying to destroy the ("Faithful and True") "rider" on the white horse (Rev. 19:1).

And so that's a paraphrased short version of what the Messianic believers have said has and will happen on our little planet called earth.

Anywho, back to the confusion of whether there is conflict and change of God's mind in the scriptures (in both Bible halves) Jesus didn't *add* to the (Hebrew) scriptures when he said he was giving 2 new commandments. It's extremely possible that He merely clarified what got missed in translation of the previous ten --the ones Moses showed up with on the stone tablets. Problem was that the world was fighting each other (in general, including Jews and Gentiles), and ignoring "the LORD God" with whatever substitute they chose instead. They misunderstood the whole point of whatever it was that "the LORD God" wanted from them (LOVE of each another without favoritism, and total {loving} devotion towards "God").

Maybe I'm wrong in that assessment, but I'm not sure how else to explain it in more concise wording.

[aretood2]

I suppose there's a problem in the way Christianity goes about its teachings in the sense that the Bible are two very different books. By all rights Christians should really only follow the New Testament (As it follows the life of Christ). Indeed I posed this question to my mother who is devout in her faith and told me that she lends very little credence in the Old Testament's teachings, while she does believe in the stories told in one form or another. When I asked in regards to the change of tone between the two books and the way God can appear quite wrathful in one and forgiving to a fault in the other, she explained that as Jesus was God's incarnation upon the Earth, he learnt that humanity was a flawed creation, but understood that there was both good and bad in each of us. As Jesus loved humanity so too did God, and learnt to forgive because God realised that even he suffered from the same weaknesses when he was in the form of the son.

In essence, God changed his mind in, and therefore the rules and laws he laid down in the Old Testament should not be treated as such. So as you say Tood, when Jesus said "I am the Way" he was effectively saying only his specific teachings should be followed.
If only more Christians actually realised that.

It's an interesting way of seeing things. Not something that I haven't heard from different people. But you'd be hard pressed to find Jews who don't have a similar view of God as being merciful and loving. So then that begs different questions. But the end result is that both groups end up presenting a God that is good and that is loving.

On interesting thing I read from a Jewish site is that we don't know that God is love (or all love) but we know that he loves. We know that he has shown mercy, and that he has enforced justice. Though I may not fully grasp what I read, and I am sure this is a gross over simplification. One thing that is stated in the New Testament is that no one knew the father, but the Son. So in essence, one could argue that it's through Jesus Christ that God and humans can truly "know" each other.

[aretood2]

Err, you brought in the idea of an absolute monarch dude and made that very human comparison. I just ran with it. As to why I am talking about man.... Man is central to this discussion.

I was comparing morality to legality. Morality being God's thing, and legality being a Monarch's thing. It's an analogy, not a comparison (I hope you know what I mean by that). Just as an absolute Monarch can't do something illegal by definition, God can't do something immoral by definition.

Umm, what are you talking about?
God never said "reflect on the nature of yourself, and how you relate to the world" God said nothing on the issue.

1 Thessalonians 5:21.

Though, "Nature of yourself" isn't part of it...not in the same sense as you'd hear it from a Buddhist or a Taoist.

And yet, it happens every day, doesn't it?
Mathematicly speaking, your far more enlightened viewpoint is hardly in the majority, is it?

Pretty much. Thus you have many issues going on about the whole world.

What kind of Double stepping nonsense is this?
1: Adam and Eve had - at the time of the "nefarious deed"- had no concept of right or wrong.
2: God stated "because you did X, I will make sure Y happens" If you cut yourself and you bleed, that is a consequence of a known action, Adam and Eve would have had no idea of consequences, until they were imposed on them.
3: Imposition of a arbitrary consequence is the act of a parent, therefore a punishment. I am -amazed- that people wish to "blame humans" for their actions but give God a pass for his on the notion of "he works in mysterious ways".

You keep adding morality to a situation that had no such concept. God gave a command, they disobeyed. It was a legal issue. In other words, they broke the law. Even sociopaths and amoral people comprehend what "law" means and that there are consequences to violating the law. Many laws have little to nothing to do with morality. We live in a world of both laws and morals. We shouldn't confuse morality with legality.

Good question, WHO is above God?
At any rate, the question is not *weather* God should or should not do XYZ, it's weather we have the right to JUDGE God based on "his actions". Thou shalt not kill, (unless it's me, cause I get a pass, because I'm GOD!!) We have a word for people who lay down rules and refuse to follow them.

What's the definition of killing? I mean the one that ancient peoples who lived during Moses' time?

Well, unless you are expecting God to come to Earth, or for us to believe people who claim they are God, that's pretty obvious.

So...a theocracy lead by God or man?

Oh HO!!!
Prove to me that just because you hold a definition of "god" that my belief is wrong.
Better yet, prove that *either* of our definitions means a darn thing.
Careful here Tood, you are sounding like an Atheist

No, you sounded like one first so I simply responded in kind. You made a definitive statement as a fact, not a belief, so I want you to show me that it is in reality a fact and not a belief. But if it is a belief, I'll be fine with it.

Except for "sins of the Father", all of those terms predate Christianity. Possibly Judaism, but I cannot back that up.

So you believe that they predate it? So if I walk out into town right now and start saying "Bless you" people won't picture something related to Christianity in their minds? Or would they all of a sudden picture images and names of gods they've probably couldn't conjure up out of the blue on Jeopardy?

Ask one of the Priests who got "moved around" and now force the Pontiff to apologise for child rape of Alter boys and others and say the church failed it's followers. 1000 years ago when we lived to 40-odd, 13 was probably a fine age to bear children, not today.[

So Catholicism preaches pedophilia?

Do you know how the average life expectancy is calculated? It's not what you think. Besides, how can little boys bear children? It was grown men with boys, I highly doubt reproduction was on anyone's mind. In fact, I need not doubt, we know enough to know that it had very little to do with reproduction.

Sure, that was wrong.

Was it? because they didn't think it was. They thought it was the right thing to do and that not doing it was irresponsible, reprehensible even.

Are your freaking kidding me??
Here we see the self righteous nature of Christianity in FULL force. I guess you just pass over the Age of Enlightenment, or claim ownership of it? Do you want to claim ownership of the classical thinkers as well?

NO honest historian would argue that the "age of enlightenment" had much to do with abolitionism considering that before that "age" slavery that Americans think of simply didn't exist. It was during that era that the justification for race based hereditary perpetual slavery was accepted and promoted. It was also during that era that religious groups formed grass roots movements against such a horrid development with the hopes of ending all forms of slavery. Many of these female abolitionists would also find themselves giving birth to the women and men for universal suffrage which by the way would be mocked by the Ancient Greeks and Romans.

Using some "Nothing good can come from Christianity" rhetoric is denial at best, and a cheap cop out at worst. Voltaire would have heard the abolitionist claims against slavery before developing his own philosophies. It's interesting that the only religious group he admired were the Quakers, and guess what vile institution they railed against? Enlightenment didn't come from the Islamic middle-east or northern Africa. It certainly didn't come out from the Chinese considering their track record with slavery and women's rights throughout history. The Africans were selling the slaves to begin with and the Indians had untouchables to contend with. The natives of the Americas were far too busy with other matters to even care. Not even Jefferson did away with his slaves while he was a alive, so much for his enlightened principle eh?

Jefferson was no "Church patriot". He may have believed in the value of the teachings of Christ, but he was also the Author of the separation of Church and State. First and Foremost he was a DEIST, not a Christian, or a Muslim, or a Pagan. He had his OWN views, views that would get him Ostracised in any right wing "church" today, So no, don't give me that garbage. Crying for the Pope, or going to Mecca? That's a personal thing, unless you feel that NOT crying for the Pope, or not going to or facing Mecca when you pray is a failure of faith.

I was pointing at relevance, you are doing something different there. The fact that millions live by these rituals, and millions of others have a national cultural inheritance to someone influenced by Jesus regardless of his faith (and we could also be talking about Gandhi here) shows relevance on a huge scale.

Let me give you a clue here, Christianity is no longer the "major power" in religion for the majority of the world, and the majority of people simply do not care about your god, or even know of him, or care about him. The only reason why Christianity even holds any sway is because it is a "western concept" (LOL) and has MONEY backing it.

Over a billion followers (easily) does not make a minority. Heck, even Judaism is a world religion when it is crazy small in numbers. Not sure what you mean here.

I am denying nothing. "My Gods" are even more impotent than yours in the grand scheme of things, but I don't really care about that.

So what's you're point?

And here we go back to the beginning, accept a definition or we have no common ground. We cannot even discuss the concept unless we bow to Christianity's will and accept their definitions.

I'm the incarnation of Christianity? Wow, you think someone would have told me? And I am an evil vile filthy being that is the scorn of existence to boot.

So how do you define "god." Why couldn't the Ori be gods?

[SGalisa]

* tracking ...
---- health issues (existing progress or lack of progress in medical advances...)

I'm sorry, but I have to post this! Medical wonders only go so far, for the moment.
So, if anyone is suffering from back spasms, DCC/DJD or DJC, herniated disc issues, or scoliosis that is progressively getting worse and causing other spinal issues, or knows someone who is already suffering thru any of these health issues, please read---
(BTW, so far there is NO cure for degenerative cartilage / arthritis conditions.)

Spoiler:

{quote}
"Tiger Woods injury leaves future looking uncertain"
(3 August 2014 Last updated at 19:44 GMT)

Tiger Woods couldn't disguise his agony as his comeback from back surgery came to its abrupt end at the WGC Bridgestone Invitational in Ohio.
...
The 38-year-old was a frail figure as he departed. Dismiss any notion that he cured his back problems with the microdiscectomy he underwent on 31 March to alleviate a pinched nerve.

Woods first suffered back spasms during the Barclays tournament in New Jersey last September. Although he completed the 2013 calendar, the injury resurfaced when he withdrew from the Honda Classic in early March.
...{end of snippet quote}
-----------------

{quote}
"Tiger Woods: Injury problems could undermine major ambitions"
(19 March 2014 Last updated at 12:59 GMT)

...He is, by no means, the first golfer to suffer back problems and with good reason.

"Typical golfing posture does not help," added Stevenson. "The increased curvature caused by the stance puts more weight through the facet joints.

"This causes more compression, they get more wear and become inflamed and the back goes into spasm. Eighty percent of the weight should be going through the discs, they are designed to have more weight on them.

"The situation is then made worse by the dynamic action that goes into hitting the ball."
...
{end of snippet quote}

Because I have (had) my own bouts with back spasms and (SEVERE) chronic back pain, I *KNOW* the type of pain Tiger Woods is going thru, because I've had it on and off over the past decade or more. I've had two *known* herniated, disintegrating discs, where the pulsing nerve nearby just never knew when to quit throbbing. I've had spasms several times every minute lasting up to more than 3 days, initially; and the last bout lasted around a month and a half..! It is CRIPPLING pain, and not something to mess with. Carrying groceries or laundry can shift the spine into sudden spasm mode; and once it starts, it is very difficult to stop.

Depending on the location of the inflamed area, there are moments when breathing is extremely difficult, especially if this is in the thoracic zone. The pain is so horrible, and there doesn't really seem to be anything on this planet yet that stops it completely, short of continuous morphine--if that even works. I have my doubts because of what I've personally experienced -- muscle relaxers, back spasm meds, both help but don't stop the unbearable agony that the spasms just are relentless in causing.

I've tried heating pads AND ice packs at different times, of course. Actually, the ice pack method worked better. First time I heard about trying it, I cringed -- "what? are you nutzo??!!"
Seriously, I had gotten so desperate from NOTHING else working to relieve the pain and help me sleep for a few glorious hours, that I finally got brave enough to lay on top of a huge ice pad (make sure if anyone tries this, you don't weigh too much to break the ice pack's seals).
Amazingly, the ice pack actually worked! I had enough layers of hand towels cushioning the onslaught of feeling ice poured down my back, so that it worked its way in gradually. And I was able to actually sleep and feel no immediate pain when I woke up (yeah, cause it got numbed!)

Anywho, when the pains first started years and years ago, I had to go for therapy, but couldn't afford to keep going. The meds were the back-up plan. But my first doctor actually caused me to end up having back spasms when he did some chiropractory work on an attempt to fix the last bout I had, the last time I ever went to him. I had to find a new doctor. And DOCTOR WHO couldn't fix my problem..

In my quest to find alternative help, I came across some spinal health forums where people with back spasms and degenerative cartilage conditions have either had surgery or done various therapy exercises. The ones with the surgeries, seemed to always end up having more surgeries, because once the one area gets fixed, the joints nearby begin to deteriorate for whatever reason, and the people end up BACK in spinal surgery. And those medical bills ain't cheap! Neither is the recovery period in lost job wages. I really didn't want to opt for surgery..

It was during this time that I heard about Tiger Woods having similar back pains, so I kept up in reading about his progress over these many months.

As for myself, end result was I finally got a new doc, but I also discovered better therapy in aerobic / yoga exercises. Some exercises I absolutely cannot do, but do the simpler ones, instead. So far, they help better than the meds!
Problem is that since I have a disintegrating cartilage condition, and hear the affected areas go "snap, crackle, pop" on a regular basis, I know I have to do the exercises as daily as possible.


Truth be told, he needs to either rest for at least an entire year or more, or simply QUIT playing golf. He's almost 40 years old, which makes him a *young* thing in contrast to myself.

Now that he's on his way to probably opting for having possibly more surgery, he needs to realize that all of that twisting he is doing in swinging those golf thingies is only going to make his spinal condition (progressively) worse and worse. Surgery is not final the answer to healing himself. Sadly, I've heard that depending on how severe a person's condition is, surgery might only make things worse. Any form of twisting activity can and will aggravate the afflicted areas into getting worse and worse. Certain weight lifting, reaching (for dishes, clothing from the closet, etc.), and even bending to tie a pair of shoes can trigger back spasms (been there, done that.. put me flat on the floor, too!!)

Retirement from golf would probably be the better option. He's got enough money now to retire on, unless of course (ACA) "Obamacare" takes all that away from him in medical bills.
Someone needs to help him find another job (a sitting still position type), if he is that desperate to work. I had a feeling he went back into playing golf way too soon, but didn't know when he'd end up throwing his back into more spasms again. Seems my concerns were proven correct.

I do hope he gets relief from this ailment, because it is extremely crippling when it hits.
Even laying flat on the floor for 12 hours never helped me enough. The ice and the exercises helped more than the meds.

Short answer to anyone else suffering from this condition, do try the Mckenzie therapy exercises. They work to some degree. If necessary, Google "exercises for back pain" (or something along those words). Water therapies also have helped to some degrees, but it helps to have a pool or jacuzzi with warm water, which cost money to install and maintain, or to go to some spa having such wonders. Not everyone can afford such *luxuries* even tho when they get to this point of back pain suffering, they could really, REALLY use a warm pool on as daily a basis as possible. Medicine also helps, but won't stop the spasms from happening at all. Also, find out when to apply heat or ice therapy to what spots, but don't wait. You'll be seriously sorry you didn't do any or all of the preventive measures.

I've heard a spinal decompression machine helps too. Those cost a lot of moolah, tho, and need space to store them until they are used. Still, do consult with a professional doctor on which needs you or someone you know have reached the point where therapy can no longer be avoided, but needs to be enacted. If it provides an extra 5 to ten years or more of relief, that is more than whatever surgeries will do to put a person into a permanent back brace with crippling pain that might only rarely go away, if at all then.

(sorry for the length of this posting, but it's important to everyone suffering with this particular condition)