|
My opinion is either you adhear to (and keep sacred) the Ten Commandments, or you are not a Christian. (period)
It is all right there in black and white folks. It is NOT hard.
Lady Aurora talked about this well enough. While the 10 commandments might be some important guidelines to follow, this is such a small part of the Bible and when Jesus was asked what the most important commandments were did not recite ANY of the 10 commandments.
Simply following the "law" does not make you a Christian. Read Romans from the Bible.
|
|
This here's an aspect of Christianity I've always had some trouble with. I'm curious how this works. So a Christian is saved from the moment he confesses and accepts Christ, right? What happens if he backs out? What if he decides it's all just bunk and becomes something else--a wiccan or whatever. Is he still saved?
This is an item, as Lady Aurora said, that is very much up for debate.
My take on it is this -- If you "back out", was it real/genuine to begin with? Personally, I question that it was genuine to begin with, in which case I feel that they are probably not truly Christian. I could easily be wrong on this, however. There are a lot of verses that suggest that "nothing can take it away". My question is whether or not it was there to begin with.
|
|
But this is the point I'm trying to make. You don't already have the house; you need to ask the friend for forgiveness first. The understanding you have is that if you ask forgiveness, you will get the house--that's what it seems to me in Christianity.
I will give you that what I said earlier about all religions being exactly the same is wrong. (I still maintain that they are incredably similar.) In Christianity only forgiveness for past transgressions of breaking the moral code is required, but this is still an act that must be perfomed before being allowed to enter heaven.
I think I understand where you are coming from--the repentance is an essential part of being a "true" Christian. So by my using the term "Christian", you automatically assume that this has been done. To clerify then: Even if repentance is required to become a true Christian with rights to heaven, that is still an act required for your goal. I admit that this seems to be different in this aspect from non-Christian religions.
Most religions are incredibly similar. As I said before, most seem to preach "be groovy to each other" in some form or another.
It just seems to me that most other religions seem to have a vague sense of what "good enough" truly is. Whereas with Christianity, we already know that we are NOT "good enough", but in the end, that doesn't matter. Jesus/God has taken care of it. Being good is more of an afterthought and a reflection of what Christ has done for us.
At least that is my take on it.
My opinion is either you adhear to (and keep sacred) the Ten Commandments, or you are not a Christian. (period)
It is all right there in black and white folks. It is NOT hard.
Also, there's more than a bit of confusion as to what they mean. "Thou shalt not kill." Have you ever swatted a fly? People must kill either animals or plants or both in order to eat. Or do you interpret it to mean "thou shalt not kill humans"? In that case, are all of our soldiers in Iraq going to Hell? What about self-defense? Or is it "thou shalt not murder, except under certain circumstances"? In that case, why are those circumstances not spelled out?
And why are the Catholic 10 Commandments different from the Protestant ones? So, it's quite hard. And the black and white are both varied and incomplete.
My opinion is either you adhear to (and keep sacred) the Ten Commandments, or you are not a Christian. (period)
It is all right there in black and white folks. It is NOT hard.
Also, there's more than a bit of confusion as to what they mean. "Thou shalt not kill." Have you ever swatted a fly? People must kill either animals or plants or both in order to eat. Or do you interpret it to mean "thou shalt not kill humans"? In that case, are all of our soldiers in Iraq going to Hell? What about self-defense? Or is it "thou shalt not murder, except under certain circumstances"? In that case, why are those circumstances not spelled out?
And why are the Catholic 10 Commandments different from the Protestant ones? So, it's quite hard. And the black and white are both varied and incomplete.
Also, the ten commandments were not exactly followed down to the letter, with regards to taking them literally and not with the interpretations that Kirth asked about, even right after they were give. Early jewish law, while not exaclty a Hammurabi's code, did allow the killing of criminals just like our own system of laws today. Much of America, a nation arguably founded on Christain principals and unarguably influenced by them today, practices the death sentence. I feel this demonstrates that the ten commandments are not absolute and were never ment to be.
Simply following the "law" does not make you a Christian. Read Romans from the Bible.
Yes, it does.
This reads as if you are saying you don't have to follow the 10 Commandments and you can still be a Christian.
Is that what you meant, because that is wrong?
Also, the ten commandments were not exactly followed down to the letter, with regards to taking them literally and not with the interpretations that Kirth asked about, even right after they were give. Early jewish law, while not exaclty a Hammurabi's code, did allow the killing of criminals just like our own system of laws today. Much of America, a nation arguably founded on Christain principals and unarguably influenced by them today, practices the death sentence. I feel this demonstrates that the ten commandments are not absolute and were never ment to be.My opinion is either you adhear to (and keep sacred) the Ten Commandments, or you are not a Christian. (period)
It is all right there in black and white folks. It is NOT hard.
Also, there's more than a bit of confusion as to what they mean. "Thou shalt not kill." Have you ever swatted a fly? People must kill either animals or plants or both in order to eat. Or do you interpret it to mean "thou shalt not kill humans"? In that case, are all of our soldiers in Iraq going to Hell? What about self-defense? Or is it "thou shalt not murder, except under certain circumstances"? In that case, why are those circumstances not spelled out?
And why are the Catholic 10 Commandments different from the Protestant ones? So, it's quite hard. And the black and white are both varied and incomplete.
You are going to stand in front of Saint Peter one day, and believe me he has heard all these arguments a billion times.
All this "lawyering" is going to send your souls to hell.
You know what is right, so do it. If you don't know and can't figure it out than you are what is known as a "lost soul."
Can you save yourself? Only your Free-Will can make that decision!
You are going to stand in front of Saint Peter one day, and believe me he has heard all these arguments a billion times.
All this "lawyering" is going to send your souls to hell.
You know what is right, so do it. If you don't know and can't figure it out than you are what is known as a "lost soul."
Can you save yourself? Only your Free-Will can make that decision!
By your own logic, you are equally damned--I'm sure you've eaten before, hence you've killed, or at least killed by proxy. This isn't "lawyering;" it's basic common sense. Free will comes into play after each person has already been weaned onto solid food, and has hence killed, or had someone else kill on his or her behalf, which is the same in the eyes of God (Jesus' logic, not mine). There is no escape by that means.
All this "lawyering" is going to send your souls to hell.
You know what is right, so do it. If you don't know and can't figure it out than you are what is known as a "lost soul."
Can you save yourself? Only your Free-Will can make that decision!
I'm not saying I don't agree with much of the ten commandments-I myself do not like killing and avoid it in as many ways possible, I do not steal, etc. But I question whether the ten commandments don't have extrenuating cercumstances. They seem, at first glance, to be clear-cut and absolute, but in practice they are occasionally impractical (like Kirth's eating example), and the so-called righteous often break them and few (percentage-wise) seem to have problems with it.
When it comes to the commandments we can't forget the fact that there is a major loophole that will keep you from burning in hell.
A sincere apology to god will get you forgiveness and being forgiven means that you get your slate wiped clean.
I believe that this exists so a person who is a devout christian can make a mistake and not get spanked by the devil when he dies.
And being free willed does mean that you are going to make a mistake. It's okay, everyone does it once in a while.
I'm not saying I don't agree with much of the ten commandments-I myself do not like killing and avoid it in as many ways possible, I do not steal, etc.
Likewise, even though I'm not Christian. I've never even boiled a kid in its mother's milk. But I've killed-- I eat, I've mowed the lawn and a bunny got into the mower, etc. I've taken the lord's name in vain if you mean casual cussing--but not if you mean breaking an oath sworn before God (since I've never made such an oath). There are so many ways of looking at these things--different translations aside, even--that there's absolutely no way for a person to follow all of them to the most rigid possible standard.
By your own logic, you are equally damned--I'm sure you've eaten before, hence you've killed, or at least killed by proxy. This isn't "lawyering;" it's basic common sense. Free will comes into play after each person has already been weaned onto solid food, and has hence killed, or had someone else kill on his or her behalf, which is the same in the eyes of God (Jesus' logic, not mine). There is no escape by that means.
God understands how the world works, he created it.
Saint Peter will understand you ate food when he questions you.
You do say a prayer at your meals don't you? Why?
Don't you eat the body of Christ at communion -- I can see you pulling out your logic books after that one, "Objection your honor!" Satan giggles when you do things like that.
When it is your turn, you will stand for your Judgement and if you say, "because I thought eating beef was akin to killing, therefore I disregarded the commandments because I think that is logical condradiciton..." etc, etc. Guess where you will spend eternity?
Only your free-will can save your soul. You have all the tools you need.
I sincerely hope you make it.
You do say a prayer at your meals don't you? Why?
No, and all the people I know who do so thank God for providing the food, so I don't see how that makes it not killing.
Don't you eat the body of Christ at communion ?
Again, no. Even if I did, it is symbolic, not actual eating of Christ. It was symbolic in the Bible, too, when Christ broke the bread and said "this is my body". The whole thing is a representation of his sacrifice. No killing invovled (on our part, anyway).
Another thing-you operate on the assumption that we believe in heaven and hell. How would you react to a person who says "Well, I think you're wrong and hell doesn't exist, so I'm not going there"? Your argument looks very weak from this perspective.
You are drinking from the Satan's cup.
I am sorry and will pray for you this evening.
Goodluck.
You are drinking from the Satan's cup.
Tastes like vanilla cream soda.
Your cup however tastes like doging a question. Personally I love to see christians fail to support their side with logic. It helps support all the atheist arguments that religion can't stand up to reason and logic. And that no discussion of religion can be held with a christian without their "arguments" dissolving into cop outs and toddleresque shouting matches.
Casca, look at the above posts. Specifically Moffs and Lady A's
They answer the questions they are asked with ideal christian understanding and they don't dodge out with a buzzer beater "well.....I'll pray for you, proving that I'm a nice christian and you're just Satans pawn". You can talk to people with religious differences and get a nice conversation I've enjoyed this one trmendously so far because of the distinct lack of tantrum like posts.
You made a statement, someone questioned it. Wow, are we a+##@@!s or what right? In a religious discusion no less. Either make your case logically and answer us (after apologizing to Dirk), or run out and put yet another nail in the "christians are ignorant blowhards" coffin.
Personally I don't care, either way I'll have fun
With you, or at your expense? Your call.
Oh and i just noticed you decided to cut out what Dick actualy said. As though you couldn't stand to see Dirk's blasphemy on your own post. Cute, it really sets the mood for your heartfelt offer of salvation.
Like framing a turd.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
You made a statement, someone questioned it. Wow, are we a!&%%@#s or what right? In a religious discusion no less. Either make your case logically and answer us (after apologizing to Dirk), or run out and put yet another nail in the "christians are ignorant blowhards" coffin.
Preach it Sexi.
CRL: Go away. You don't really have anything to say. Go pray for all us poor misguided sinners and take your self-congraulatory self-righteous nonesense with you. When I see St. Peter, I'll tell him to kiss my ass and that I'd rather burn than suffer through fools of your caliber.
Not that I think you've picked the right dog in this particular fight or that there will actually be a St. Peter, but insofar as Moff Rimmer has caused me for any amount of time to consider the merits of his philosophy and the teachings of his god (which he has), you have reminded me of the unthinking robotlike belief that taints all religions. You have done your faith a diservice with your postings; I hope St. Peter forgives your hubris and self-righteousness.
Kisses,
Sebastian
Guys, come on, let Casca continue.
He is a wonderful source of amusement for me and my friends and we could use as many laughs as possible these days.
Oh yeah, check out CRL's profile, it's hillarious.
|
Wow. I only knew Barry Sadler as the man behind the amusing song Ballad of the Green Berets - y'know:
Fighting soldiers from the sky
Fearless men who jump and die
Who knew he also wrote books? They must be excellent...
My question was open to the public. If CRL declines to answer it (though I hope he doesn't, I'm interested in what he has to say), anyone else with an opinion can.
Saint Peter will understand you ate food when he questions you.
What about the people bombing abortion clinics? Does St. Peter understand that? Where does one draw the line? I'm curious as to what source of hidden knowledge gives one unerring insight into the true meaning of the Commandments? The Bible fails to spell it out.
No, I don't. But I look at what I'm eating and understand that something (or many things) died so that I could do so, and I don't hide behind rhetoric or non-logic; I give honor to the animals and plants I'm about to consume, and understand that they're about to become a part of me, and don't shrink from the reality of it, or claim to somehow be blameless.
No, I don't. As Trevanian said, "No form of cannibalism appeals to me." Even if it's only symbolic.
If there are "pearly gates," I'll walk up to them like a man, face St. Pete squarely, and he'll see what I was like. And I'll get a feel for him, too. If he's dead-set on throwing everyone who thinks into Hell, then Heaven must be a very lonely place, reserved only for those with inside knowledge of what exactly the Commandments mean. And that's just silly. If God is really omniscient, then he's neither petty nor arbitrary, and certainly not subject to the opionions of narrow-minded folk who claim to know what He is thinking.
Something to end on, that I sincerely believe:
"He who claims to know the mind of God
Is engaged in the Devil's work."
While the 10 commandments might be some important guidelines to follow, this is such a small part of the Bible and when Jesus was asked what the most important commandments were did not recite ANY of the 10 commandments.
Simply following the "law" does not make you a Christian. Read Romans from the Bible.
Excellent point, Moff. I guess I appreciate it so much because it was *exactly* what I was thinking! The *only* commandment Jesus advocated was "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength" subpart B "And love your neighbor as yourself".
In the story of the rich young ruler who came and asked Jesus what he must do to be saved, he claimed (probably falsely) to have always kept all ten commandments. The Bible doesn't indicate Jesus was impressed and after commanding him to give all he owned to the poor (thus to demonstrate that he was committed to God instead of money) the man went away sadly. I interpret those passages to mean that ultimately that poor "rich man" ended up losing his soul. I don't think anyone can logically argue that the rich ruler is portrayed in a positive way.Anyway, point being, ten commandments aren't a prerequisite to Heaven.
Most religions are incredibly similar. As I said before, most seem to preach "be groovy to each other" in some form or another.
It just seems to me that most other religions seem to have a vague sense of what "good enough" truly is. Whereas with Christianity, we already know that we are NOT "good enough", but in the end, that doesn't matter. Jesus/God has taken care of it. Being good is more of an afterthought and a reflection of what Christ has done for us.
At least that is my take on it.
Again, I think you and I clearly believe the same way, Moff. I definitely support your comments here.
Also, there's more than a bit of confusion as to what they mean. "Thou shalt not kill." Have you ever swatted a fly? People must kill either animals or plants or both in order to eat. Or do you interpret it to mean "thou shalt not kill humans"? In that case, are all of our soldiers in Iraq going to Hell? What about self-defense? Or is it "thou shalt not murder, except under certain circumstances"? In that case, why are those circumstances not spelled out?And why are the Catholic 10 Commandments different from the Protestant ones? So, it's quite hard. And the black and white are both varied and incomplete.
Not supporting Casca's views here but just offering some clarification on the Thou shalt not kill debate. The original language is better translated Do not murder. The original word in the text for murder specifically meant to kill a human being (not slaughtering an animal - which they had a different word for) and that such human being was "innocent" (they also had a different word for killing a criminal) and that the deed was done intentially (completely different word used for describing killing someone accidentally).
Not supporting Casca's views here but just offering some clarification on the Thou shalt not kill debate. The original language is better translated Do not murder. The original word in the text for murder specifically meant to kill a human being (not slaughtering an animal - which they had a different word for) and that such human being was "innocent" (they also had a different word for killing a criminal) and that the deed was done intentially (completely different word used for describing killing someone accidentally).
Also, there's more than a bit of confusion as to what they mean. "Thou shalt not kill." Have you ever swatted a fly? People must kill either animals or plants or both in order to eat. Or do you interpret it to mean "thou shalt not kill humans"? In that case, are all of our soldiers in Iraq going to Hell? What about self-defense? Or is it "thou shalt not murder, except under certain circumstances"? In that case, why are those circumstances not spelled out?And why are the Catholic 10 Commandments different from the Protestant ones? So, it's quite hard. And the black and white are both varied and incomplete.
Oops, forgot the second thing I wanted to say...
Kirth, I'm curious what you mean about the Catholic & Protestants having different 10 Commandments. Can you clarify that statement?
Not supporting Casca's views here but just offering some clarification on the Thou shalt not kill debate. The original language is better translated Do not murder. The original word in the text for murder specifically meant to kill a human being (not slaughtering an animal - which they had a different word for) and that such human being was "innocent" (they also had a different word for killing a criminal) and that the deed was done intentially (completely different word used for describing killing someone accidentally).
Ah! This makes much more sense. Thanks for the clerification.
Although I have to say that this is where my views differ from this particular commandment. I see no difference between humans and animals, and so I feel that killing them is as bad as killing a human.
Also, I dislike the killing of criminals, mostly on the basis that it condones their drime by punishing them with something that would otherwise be a crime itself.
Guys, come on, let Casca continue.
Yeah, don't chase him away! I totally disagree with his basic philosophy but I am interested to hear him try to defend it. Let's not be nasty in our "civil" discussion. Isn't the point to at least *try* to understand the opposite viewpoint?
This here's an aspect of Christianity I've always had some trouble with. I'm curious how this works. So a Christian is saved from the moment he confesses and accepts Christ, right? What happens if he backs out? What if he decides it's all just bunk and becomes something else--a wiccan or whatever. Is he still saved?This is an item, as Lady Aurora said, that is very much up for debate.
My take on it is this -- If you "back out", was it real/genuine to begin with? Personally, I question that it was genuine to begin with, in which case I feel that they are probably not truly Christian. I could easily be wrong on this, however. There are a lot of verses that suggest that "nothing can take it away". My question is whether or not it was there to begin with.
I totally agree with you (again). I would question whether such a person who backed out had made a sincere commitment to begin with. The parable of the Sower & the seeds in which some of the seed falls on the rocky soil and sprouts up quickly but has no "roots" and therefore dies in the heat of the sun probably illustrates such cases. Or other seed falls among the weeds and is choked out. Again, this could illustrate the person who "backs out" although this illustration could just as easily be interpreted the other way. Only one seed falls on the good soil and grows up to produce fruit. Thus only one demonstrates a "true Christian". But maybe bringing all that up caused more confusion than it cleared up. Sorry.
Although I have to say that this is where my views differ from this particular commandment. I see no difference between humans and animals, and so I feel that killing them is as bad as killing a human.
Also, I dislike the killing of criminals, mostly on the basis that it condones their drime by punishing them with something that would otherwise be a crime itself.
I hear what you're saying and I'm not trying to argue you into "my" point of view. The difference between humans and animals is that humans are created in the image of God; animals are not. Humans have an eternal soul. Animals do not. God put humans "in dominion over" the animals. We're in charge but we should still act responsibly in the care of all of nature (this shows respect for God & His creation). The Bible says God is going to account for every animal killed (you can't pick off songbirds, for instance, for "fun") but God clearly provided animals (& plants, obviously) for food. There is no sin therefore in "using" plants and animals in a responsible manner for survival purposes.
Your statement brings up a question I always wondered on this very issue. If someone *does* consider humans to be nothing more than a different species of animals then what stops you from treating your fellow humans like animals or your fellow animals like humans? You chain your dog outside when you leave the house? Why not do the same thing to your kid? You eat a hamburger? Why don't you eat ground human flesh (especially that of a stranger)? You perform elaborate funeral services for your dead grandmother, why not for the fly you just swatted? These are ridiculous exaggerations, of course, but you get my point. What is the philosophy about two completely separate standards of living, if one considers humans and animals equally precious lifeforms?
Your statement brings up a question I always wondered on this very issue. If someone *does* consider humans to be nothing more than a different species of animals then what stops you from treating your fellow humans like animals or your fellow animals like humans? You chain your dog outside when you leave the house? Why not do the same thing to your kid? You eat a hamburger? Why don't you eat ground human flesh (especially that of a stranger)? You perform elaborate funeral services for your dead grandmother, why not for the fly you just swatted? These are ridiculous exaggerations, of course, but you get my point. What is the philosophy about two completely separate standards of living, if one considers humans and animals equally precious lifeforms?
This is a good point. So here's what I think:
It is not that humans are no better than animals, it is that animals are as good as humans. This causes problems when animals are used as food sources. I don't just mean eating meat (although I am a vegetarian), I mean eggs and milk and the like. However, I do not feel that all animals are quite capable of the same higher thoughts humans are. They are not capable of thinking "hey, those humans only feed us because they want to steal our (unfertilized) eggs and/or the milk for our young", for example. So long as the animals are free-range, uncaged, not injected with whatever hormones or antibiotics, and otherwise treated well, I shall continue to enjoy scrambled eggs with breakfast and milk in my cereal.
Hope that all made sense, 'cause it does to me.
Okay...I think I understand. The only thing left sorta unresolved in my mind is prayer. I guess if we all co-exist or inter-exist or whatever, then there's no need to pray, right? You just meditate as a way to further your own journey of enlightment? What do you do when you have a problem that's beyond your capability to handle? Or when you *need* something (be it physical, emotional, psychological, whatever)?
strange statement; as most prayer not involved with the give me's is meditation.
hmm, the more I read this the more I begin to understand that non Christian have no idea what Christianity is all about. Seems to be a lot of discussion on Heavon and Hell, but this in not something a Christian really gets excited about; well, some evangalists use the fire and brimstone, but mostly it is all mistaken and fear tactics mixed in with a lot of theatrics and drama. Not at all the stuff of Christianity for most people in their day to day lives. I have tried to image life without God; the vast emptiness in those who recognise that God dwells inside them, but I just can not do it. If you were born after Christ; then God has written the law into your heart and you know good and evil; He is with you always unless you actually reject him.
Sexi Golem says he is good 90 percent of the time; good only comes from God, so 10 percent of the time you are filled with doubt, rejection, and who knows what; but each day you continue doing your 90 percent good, yet you think you are going to Hell. I dont understand this very well. Do you strive to do better and not repeat the same mistakes? Are you kind to strangers? Are you vidictive to those who hurt you? If you dont know anyone that shines forth with a inner spirit and fire; a loving person who is kind and sharing and generous and loving to even those who hurt and slander them; then I would say you do not know any Christians. I would think that only the Enemy of Christ would tell you that you are going to Hell; a Christian would talk of life; of love; about saving those dead in the world who do not live abundant lives of joy.
There are pattern of behavior that are typical with people young in Christianity. There are pattern identifiable with Christians in general; you should ge able to tell a Christian by the way they act and what they do for others. The greater in love of Christ that you are the harder you judge yourself as unworthy; the more you understand that you are here to make other peoples lives better. yes, there are times when you must warn others of detrimental activities; thing that will stain their walk of love so harshly that they may not recover; not that God reject them; they reject themselves; that is how the Enemy works; that is his power; doubt; confusion, persecution; reminding you that you have failed and will again. There is only one counter; the armor of God -faith, you learn faith by learning love. To a Christian all things are relected in this simple fact.
So, how many Christians do you know; and how many people do you know who are lost; struggling; need help; need encouragement, need a sense of self worth and that they matter and are important. It would seem to me that any religion that does not lead a person to help others is useless.
Sure, we were made in the image of God; but were not the Angels also made in the image of God; yet some of them too fell. It is hard; very very hard to not be selfish and to a Christian; that is the source of all sin; all corruption; all wickedness. All commandments that you hear; that you read all that you find in the bible are really just restatements of the First commandment; ok; really the second; but the first of the ten commandments.
In my understanding; if you follow Gods ways; and commandments; then you love and profess god with your actions; your words just confuse the issue because of doubt; the question to me is; why are you a good person 90 percent of the time; why bother? Why do you fail 10 percent of the time, and why do you care; perhaps it is arrogance, but I may know the answer; I wonder if you have ever asked yourself.
heeh wow this thread leads for long posts. I wonder if a Buddist or Muslim, or Jew would really answer any differently. well, will go back to reading some more; am still a bit confused on where people are coming from.
Your statement brings up a question I always wondered on this very issue. If someone *does* consider humans to be nothing more than a different species of animals then what stops you from treating your fellow humans like animals or your fellow animals like humans? You chain your dog outside when you leave the house? Why not do the same thing to your kid? You eat a hamburger? Why don't you eat ground human flesh (especially that of a stranger)? You perform elaborate funeral services for your dead grandmother, why not for the fly you just swatted? These are ridiculous exaggerations, of course, but you get my point. What is the philosophy about two completely separate standards of living, if one considers humans and animals equally precious lifeforms?
I'm more or less with Dirk here, but I'm not a vegetarian solely because I feel bad for the plants, too. And everyone has to eat. But I don't normally swat flies if I can shoo them outside. Level of intelligence dictates that interactions will be limited with many critters, but anyone who spends time with various animals quickly learns that some are much more intelligent than others (unlike in D&D and in Christian myth). And I feel that it's outrageously arrogant to assume that everything is here for us to despoil and ruin as we see fit (many Christians agree with me on that point as well, feeling that God's creation should be preserved and kept sacred).
As far as not eating people, it's basic pragmatism. Cannibals in history tended to open themselves up to horrible prion diseases (similar to mad cow), and that's a pretty strong reason not to eat people. In fact, I avoid eating apes as well, for the same reason.
I wonder if a Buddist or Muslim, or Jew would really answer any differently. well, will go back to reading some more; am still a bit confused on where people are coming from.
As a Buddhist, I can answer part of that. Those who are enlightened, even in a shallow way, "radiate" the way you describe, and yes, it teaches one to go out of one's way to help others. So, the root answer is the same, but with the caveat that we do NOT agree that all good and all happiness comes only from Christianity. Spend some time with a Buddhist monk (a real one, not a Hare Krishna or somebody who simply claims to be "into Buddhism") and you'll see plenty of evidence to the contrary.
I have tried to image life without God; the vast emptiness in those who recognise that God dwells inside them, but I just can not do it. If you were born after Christ; then God has written the law into your heart and you know good and evil; He is with you always unless you actually reject him.
I dont' feel that a non-Christian life is a life w/o God, neccessarily. I am not Christian, but I believe in God. I simply experience Him in a different way than you do (well, not too different, just on my own terms).
Seems to be a lot of discussion on Heavon and Hell, but this in not something a Christian really gets excited about;
It's nice to know that most Christians aren't concerning themselves with heaven and hell on a day-to-day basis. It sounds tiresome. Honestly, I myself am dubious about both.
This here's an aspect of Christianity I've always had some trouble with. I'm curious how this works. So a Christian is saved from the moment he confesses and accepts Christ, right? What happens if he backs out? What if he decides it's all just bunk and becomes something else--a wiccan or whatever. Is he still saved?This is an item, as Lady Aurora said, that is very much up for debate.
My take on it is this -- If you "back out", was it real/genuine to begin with? Personally, I question that it was genuine to begin with, in which case I feel that they are probably not truly Christian. I could easily be wrong on this, however. There are a lot of verses that suggest that "nothing can take it away". My question is whether or not it was there to begin with.
well, do you mean what is called backslide? hmm, Jesus speaks very harshly about those that profess him and then backslide; this tends to happen in our modern society when an evangalist professes to a crowd and someone gets saved; then next week the same thing; and again; and again; the person has not support network and never moved beyond the point of being saved; gets bitter; recants; turns his back on god; finds some support group of dubious value to live out his life with; happens time and time again. This person is in real spiritual trouble if I understand correctly. If you have not Grace, you must stand the judgement; no one can survive judgement.
I dont understand the value of asking this situational or that situational thing; what happens; who knows; we have no idea what is in the persons heart or where they are in their walk of faith. It is not you mouth that professes your faith; it is you; your life; all of it. God has stated that he does not want any to perish; He WILL try to save you no matter your situation or perdicament; there are steps to make this easier on you or you can go your own way and make it harder; but no matter what; you are called to Him and He is trying to save you; three is a purpose for all things; mabye in your example he will see that spark he needs in this new group and bring all of them to Goodness. The ways of God are a mystery, but His love is not.
Also, there's more than a bit of confusion as to what they mean. "Thou shalt not kill." Have you ever swatted a fly? People must kill either animals or plants or both in order to eat. Or do you interpret it to mean "thou shalt not kill humans"?
I'm a super duper "plant-friendly" vegan. For sustenence I just gnaw on rocks all day.
Always get out of speeding tickets by demonstrating to the officer that my 'lead foot' really is a lead foot.
I'm Kurious, Kirth... what were your thoughts on the Tibetan Book of the Dead and the luminosity described therein? Does it meld harmoniously with traditional buddhist works?
It reads more like proto-psychology than a religion text. I really enjoyed it, from the realm of the deva loka to that of the pretas (hungry ghosts)... all good.
I'm Kurious, Kirth... what were your thoughts on the Tibetan Book of the Dead and the luminosity described therein? Does it meld harmoniously with traditional buddhist works? It reads more like proto-psychology than a religion text. I really enjoyed it, from the realm of the deva loka to that of the pretas (hungry ghosts)... all good.
Honestly haven't read it, much like a Lutheran might not be familiar with medieval Catholic texts, I'd imagine. Those Tibetans liked all kinds of weird trappings with their Buddhism-- rebirth, in the case of the "Bardo Thodol," which a lot of other Buddhist sects also incorporated as a result of Buddhism being founded in (largely Hindu) India. It's not part of the Buddha's teachings, although it's cool stuff, from what I've hard of it.
I'm a super duper "plant-friendly" vegan. For sustenence I just gnaw on rocks all day.
Heh. I became a geologist so I could learn to talk to the rocks, so I'd feel guilty eating them, too.
I'm a super duper "plant-friendly" vegan. For sustenence I just gnaw on rocks all day.Heh. I became a geologist so I could learn to talk to the rocks, so I'd feel guilty eating them, too.
GREAT! NOW WHAT AM I GONNA EAT!
Feeling... faint... I... mommy?
I'm Kurious, Kirth... what were your thoughts on the Tibetan Book of the Dead and the luminosity described therein? Does it meld harmoniously with traditional buddhist works? It reads more like proto-psychology than a religion text. I really enjoyed it, from the realm of the deva loka to that of the pretas (hungry ghosts)... all good.Honestly haven't read it, much like a Lutheran might not be familiar with medieval Catholic texts, I'd imagine. Those Tibetans liked all kinds of weird trappings with their Buddhism-- rebirth, in the case of the "Bardo Thodol," which a lot of other Buddhist sects also incorporated as a result of Buddhism being founded in (largely Hindu) India. It's not part of the Buddha's teachings, although it's cool stuff, from what I've hard of it.
Thanks for explaining. That's kind of what I figured. It's definitely worth a gander, or a goose.
When I was 15 a woman named Cat (who I believe won an academy award of some time for her documentary on Buddhism) gave me a book called "The Way of the White Clouds" written by Lama Anagarika Govinda. Written back in 1947. A fantastic book. Ever heard of it?
No, I don't. As Trevanian said, "No form of cannibalism appeals to me." Even if it's only symbolic.
Soylent Green is Papal!
(Sorry, had to get that out of my system.)
I see no difference between humans and animals, and so I feel that killing them is as bad as killing a human.
Ethical vegetarianism rubs me the wrong way; it's based on the erroneous belief that plants lack animus. Unless you're an (ova-)fructarian, you're killing something living. Is that bad? Clearly not always.
Your statement brings up a question I always wondered on this very issue. If someone *does* consider humans to be nothing more than a different species of animals then what stops you from treating your fellow humans like animals or your fellow animals like humans?
Let's be clear here: humans are made out of the same stuff as animals... and rocks, and stars, and everything else in the universe. A thing's unique characteristics are not the result of any one element, but of how those elements are put together. To quote 3rd Rock: "I know for a fact that every word in your book has been written before! Perhaps you've read... the Dictionary!" Every piece of great English literature is just a collection of common words, themselves made from only 26 distinct letters. The universe works the same way.
So, to answer your question, just because a person's "soul" is emergent rather than fundamental, that doesn't make it any less special. Every emergent collection of matter/energy - human, animal, mineral, plasma - must be approached in its own way.
you should ge able to tell a Christian by the way they act and what they do for others
I think goodness is inherent to people, and not to an external source. Can someone demonstrate otherwise?
I see no difference between humans and animals, and so I feel that killing them is as bad as killing a human.Ethical vegetarianism rubs me the wrong way; it's based on the erroneous belief that plants lack animus. Unless you're an (ova-)fructarian, you're killing something living. Is that bad? Clearly not always.
You stated that as a fact. I have no idea where you got that from. I've yet to hear one of the hundreds of vegetarians I've known ever say, "Plants don't have souls." It doesn't even make sense, really, as ethics, in general, are philosophoes pertaining to the values of a society regarding right from wrong, not as typically heaven and hell.
Speaking as an atheist vegan, I'll say that souls have nothing to do with my ethical vegetarianism. Human death and animal death are equal to me. Always has been. No one taught that to me. I don't need a god in heavenly perch to decree "don't kill Latvians!" because when you kill your first screaming Latvian it becomes painfully clear that it was a terrible thing to have done, and you know to not do it again.
Clearly there is a qualitative difference between slaughtering a sentient squealing cow and yanking rhubarb. However, as someone who has farmed, and brought plants up from seedlings, I can admit that I really do feel bad for the plants as well. Not as bad, mind you. The day the stringbeans on my fork look at me pleading for mercy is the day I'll sigh, walk in the other room, and suffocate myself under the pillow of absurdity.
Ethical vegetarianism rubs me the wrong way; it's based on the erroneous belief that plants lack animus.You stated that as a fact. I have no idea where you got that from.
Well, the rest of your post pretty much says it to me. BTW, when I say animus, I don't mean a soul, I means the qualities which we ascribe to living things that makes us squeamish about killing and eating them.
I realized plants had animus after watching an episode of Beyond 2000 almost 20 years ago. This particular segment was about giraffe dying in African nature reserves. I say dying, but what I really mean is being killed by acacia trees. You see, when an acacia tree is attacked - chewed on by a giraffe - it redirects its energies from what is was doing (photosynthesizing) to producing poison. This poison is bitter so the giraffe knows its time to move on. However, in addition to producing poison, the acacia also releases a pheromone that tells other trees down wind to start producing poison because a predator is on its way. The giraffe, like any good predator, have learned to come into acacia groves from downwind, so as to catch the trees by surprise. Normally, the giraffe will move on when a grove becomes inedible, but the game parks weren't big enough; with no other choice the giraffe chose to eat poisoned food over starvation.
Here's the deal though: When the acacia tree is attacked, it fights back . It screams, alerting its kith and kin to danger. It will kill to survive. These sound like very animalistic actions. Just because we can't see it fight and can't hear it scream does not depreciate these actions.
To me ethical vegetarianism is hypocritical. You put animals and people on the same level, but you think you're superior to animals because you arbitrarily choose what living things you eat. It's a prescriptive rather than descriptive way to live.
That said, it doesn't hurt me what you eat (as long as it's not me), so if you still want to be an vegetarian, I respect your right do so.
I get my inspiration from the animal kingdom. So I eat anything I can catch. Sure plants are easier but where's the challenge?
Okay. After six attempts, I've given up trying to get this thread to allow me to reply. I'll just type my answer the old fashion way:
Hill Giant wrote:
I believe people are inherently good from internal sources, not external ones. Can you prove otherwise?
My answer - no, though I believe goodness only comes from God. But neither can you prove that goodness is some inherent trait coming from some internal source in people. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree and move on to topics that *are* open for debate.
I don't need a god in heavenly perch to decree "don't kill Latvians!" because when you kill your first screaming Latvian it becomes painfully clear that it was a terrible thing to have done, and you know to not do it again.
Clearly there is a qualitative difference between slaughtering a sentient squealing cow and yanking rhubarb. However, as someone who has farmed, and brought plants up from seedlings, I can admit that I really do feel bad for the plants as well. Not as bad, mind you. The day the stringbeans on my fork look at me pleading for mercy is the day I'll sigh, walk in the other room, and suffocate myself under the pillow of absurdity.
So what if you're the first screaming Latvian? That's a bummer.
And are you suggesting it's okay to do something you think might be morally wrong (for lack of a better term) as long as you "feel bad, but not as bad" as some other unacceptable behavior? That kind of sliding "lesser of two evils" scale is not only illogical and arbitrary but really scary!
And are you suggesting it's okay to do something you think might be morally wrong (for lack of a better term) as long as you "feel bad, but not as bad" as some other unacceptable behavior? That kind of sliding "lesser of two evils" scale is not only illogical and arbitrary but really scary!
Sorry to butt in, but I can't think of any ethical judgement that is not in some way arbitrary. The differences between right and wrong seem to me to depend solely on where any particular person or group chooses to draw the line. Even if you feel some action is wrong because of some unarguable objective standard (eg. you believe God is real and the arbiter of objective good and God says it's wrong) there are clearly different points upon a continuum, and all commands are open to interpretation.
Think about the standard ethical brain-teaser: Theft is wrong. A man can't afford medicine for his dying wife, so he breaks into a pharmacy and steals it. Is that wrong? More or less wrong than mugging someone in the street because you want a new pair of sneakers to look cool in front of your mates? They're both theft. You can argue yourself blue justifying the actions of the first man (maybe the company is stealing by overcharging and "an eye for an eye" is OK? Maybe saving a life overrides the wrong of theft?), but you can't escape the fact that that's what you are doing: Justifying because you know that according to the rules he has just committed an immoral act.
The idea I find scary is that ethics are somehow immutable. It seems to me that morality has to be flexible, or else unimaginable injustice will result. Of course everything we are windbagging about here comes down to opinion, but I think it's interesting that you can fear an idea that I think is self-evident, and that I am horrified by your attitude toward ethics. Then again the only thing I ever seem to really learn from talking about religion is that the world is full of people whose beliefs directly oppose mine and that they are as well-intentioned as I am and believe as strongly as I do. That's the scariest thought of all, but also somehow comforting...
I don't need a god in heavenly perch to decree "don't kill Latvians!" because when you kill your first screaming Latvian it becomes painfully clear that it was a terrible thing to have done, and you know to not do it again.
Clearly there is a qualitative difference between slaughtering a sentient squealing cow and yanking rhubarb. However, as someone who has farmed, and brought plants up from seedlings, I can admit that I really do feel bad for the plants as well. Not as bad, mind you. The day the stringbeans on my fork look at me pleading for mercy is the day I'll sigh, walk in the other room, and suffocate myself under the pillow of absurdity.
So what if you're the first screaming Latvian? That's a bummer.
And are you suggesting it's okay to do something you think might be morally wrong (for lack of a better term) as long as you "feel bad, but not as bad" as some other unacceptable behavior? That kind of sliding "lesser of two evils" scale is not only illogical and arbitrary but really scary!
My line about the screaming Latvian was meant to be a joke. Clearly I don't need to kill first to know that even small doses of dispensing violence feels bad and is bad.
And your "lesser of two evils" paragraph/admonishment...do you think that's what I'm saying based on what I wrote? I seriously have no idea what you're talking about.
Hill giant, Lady Aurora... where did I say that killing animals was a moral wrong? I can't rightly defend against words never said and don't believe. I believe we each make our own decision what our connection with the animal world will be. The hunter and prey have always known each other. Their bond is ancient and sacred. My bond with them is altogether different.
It's as if people are trying to be offended by what was clearly just me standing up for one of my groups again, despite my lighthearted take. Standing up again, just like last time when folks here started casually tossing out assumptions about atheists.