True, but I doubt they'd say anything negative, we're talking head over heels here , and I don't know, but I find that I always exaggerate the beauty of a girl I'm in love with, I exaggerate everything, though to me it might be true... I don't know if this makes any sense to you or not...
and hi, we need to catch up;)
It makes perfect sense, and that's what the transcendant nature of LOVE is, Collin! It reminds us of our true nature, which is far beyond or "exaggerated" from our human flaws.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I still sense I have not made my point so to tie my point to religion, I am going to try this:
I'm going to use an example I have seen play out with numerous people of non-faith, in terms of not believing in a power greater than themself. Let's say a non-faith person is a drug abuser. Let's say that a religious person is trying to convince the drug abuser that what they are doing is not good for them. Most people don't have the vast understanding of how it can be destructive, even in an insidious way. So let's say that the religious person can't articulate such concerns in an informed rational way, but that he/she is trying to head off the destructiveness playing out, due to concern or a personal "faith" in the natural consequences of life. Imagine that the religious person brings belief of God into the equation, as their personal way of depicting the natural laws that surround us and govern human behaviour. The religious person explains the consequences of God. And then, imagine, if you will, that the person of non-belief says "I am a non-believer". Your God has no control over me and my actions. Why do you let an imaginary being dictate your life? This isn't about me having a problem--it is clearly YOUR problem". I've seen this happen over and over on this board, alone(not necessarily in terms of drugs). This is a case of non-belief being comforting to a person when they are not accepting personal accountabilty. And by this person of non-faith, justifying their actions and putting it back on the religious person, they are unable to face the actual consequences they are blinded to.
By that same token, I understand non-believers and athiests on this board and in my life, demonstrate faith in many ways. They accept their own accountability for the standards they do believe in. And at the same time, there are Christians who claim to hold faith, but act on non-faith all the time.
When we are avoiding accountability, we do so because we don't believe we are held to it. We have not yet learned that lesson--maybe we are not open to learn it. Religious or non-religious. We then must learn the hard way through life consequences. This is how our unconscious drives us to grow and adapt, if we choose not to naturally accept growth.
I think I understand what you're getting at, angelica. It's just that I think, as a purely practical matter, it's best to avoid the use of "god" when trying to convince an atheist of something, because it will never get you anywhere. If what you mean are the laws of nature, then stick to that terminology. Atheists certainly agree that nature exists, they understand cause and effect. The word "god" comes with too much cultural baggage. One person may use it to mean all of the unseen forces around us that we do not yet understand, but the person on the receiving end in North America is likely to hear it in terms of the god of the bible. Rather than go through exhaustive explanations of what you mean by "god," isn't it simpler to avoid using god in the first place? I think that there are many outstanding reasons to not abuse drugs that have nothing to do with unseen forces, and as a former drug abuser I can certainly appreciate how difficult it can be to communicate those reasons to someone in the throes of an addiction, but I doubt that any reasoning that involves an entity that does not exist in the mind of the abuser is going to be helpful unless you can prove to them that it does indeed exist, which of course you can't.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
I think I understand what you're getting at, angelica. It's just that I think, as a purely practical matter, it's best to avoid the use of "god" when trying to convince an atheist of something, because it will never get you anywhere. If what you mean are the laws of nature, then stick to that terminology. Atheists certainly agree that nature exists, they understand cause and effect. The word "god" comes with too much cultural baggage. One person may use it to mean all of the unseen forces around us that we do not yet understand, but the person on the receiving end in North America is likely to hear it in terms of the god of the bible. Rather than go through exhaustive explanations of what you mean by "god," isn't it simpler to avoid using god in the first place? I think that there are many outstanding reasons to not abuse drugs that have nothing to do with unseen forces, and as a former drug abuser I can certainly appreciate how difficult it can be to communicate those reasons to someone in the throes of an addiction, but I doubt that any reasoning that involves an entity that does not exist in the mind of the abuser is going to be helpful unless you can prove to them that it does indeed exist, which of course you can't.
I was trying very to be sensitive and not using "God", but the problem there was that people were not understanding the relevence of my Godless, non-belief point to the thread, and to religion. So when I'm making a case about God or a lack of God, God is relevent! If I hope to assert my point, anyway--which is my purpose! I don't seek to not make my point!
Ultimately when anyone chooses denial as a way of learning, they will justify that denial. That's been my underlying theme in this thread. No matter what the method they are approached with. I think you and I both agree that ultimately fine boundaries must be respected, (I assume you agree, because I see you tread such fine lines quite gracefully) and often that means we live and let others live--consequences or not.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
This broader scope you guys are referring to: all it is is the same events and teachings presented from a different perspective (that being the writer). Extremely useful from the standpoint of studying the Word.
^^Thats precisely what I meant he just said it much more eloquently!
The fool has said in his heart,
"There is no God." They are corrupt,
their deeds are vile; there is
no one who does good.
~Psalms 14:1
Well, of course it says this. The Bible wants believers, not atheists. The above quote is patently false regarding atheists, but it's there anyway. The Bible is not going to say anything good about atheists because they are not good models of Bible believers, no matter how good they may be as human beings. It's all politics. You paint people different than you in a bad light. You dehumanize, and that sets you free. It also creates an us and them and a reason to fight the "good" fight. Politics, I tell ya.
Well, of course it says this. The Bible wants believers
What do you mean "the bible wants" THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU SAID HERE.
Were all the men who wrote the bible, which spanned thousands of years by the way from Moses to John (Genesis to Revelation), in on some kind of MAJOR CONSPIRACY to dupe all of mankind?!?
Its the only Holy book written by men who didnt know each other, thousands of years apart, yet the books corellate perfectly with one another.
What exactly was Moses and Johns MOTIVE for this huge conspiracy? *eyeroll*
What do you mean "the bible wants" THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU SAID HERE.
Were all the men who wrote the bible, which spanned thousands of years by the way from Moses to John (Genesis to Revelation), in on some kind of MAJOR CONSPIRACY to dupe all of mankind?!?
Its the only Holy book written by men who didnt know each other, thousands of years apart, yet the books corellate perfectly with one another.
What exactly was Moses and Johns MOTIVE for this huge conspiracy? *eyeroll*
I stand by my point however. Moses' and John's and everyone in between's belief in god does not prove god. It doesn't have to be a conspiracy, it's called faith.
edit: let's continue this in the other thread, it's the same discussion...
I stand by my point however. Moses' and John's and everyone in between's belief in god does not prove god. It doesn't have to be a conspiracy, it's called faith.
edit: let's continue this in the other thread, it's the same discussion...
Yeah, how did this happen? Too funny, dual thread arguing.
Anyway, Im getting tired, you are a stubborn, stubborn man!
Comments
It makes perfect sense, and that's what the transcendant nature of LOVE is, Collin!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I was trying very to be sensitive and not using "God", but the problem there was that people were not understanding the relevence of my Godless, non-belief point to the thread, and to religion. So when I'm making a case about God or a lack of God, God is relevent! If I hope to assert my point, anyway--which is my purpose! I don't seek to not make my point!
Ultimately when anyone chooses denial as a way of learning, they will justify that denial. That's been my underlying theme in this thread. No matter what the method they are approached with. I think you and I both agree that ultimately fine boundaries must be respected, (I assume you agree, because I see you tread such fine lines quite gracefully) and often that means we live and let others live--consequences or not.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
^^Thats precisely what I meant he just said it much more eloquently!
Well, of course it says this. The Bible wants believers, not atheists. The above quote is patently false regarding atheists, but it's there anyway. The Bible is not going to say anything good about atheists because they are not good models of Bible believers, no matter how good they may be as human beings. It's all politics. You paint people different than you in a bad light. You dehumanize, and that sets you free. It also creates an us and them and a reason to fight the "good" fight. Politics, I tell ya.
Inspired by god.
naděje umírá poslední
What do you mean "the bible wants" THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU SAID HERE.
Were all the men who wrote the bible, which spanned thousands of years by the way from Moses to John (Genesis to Revelation), in on some kind of MAJOR CONSPIRACY to dupe all of mankind?!?
Its the only Holy book written by men who didnt know each other, thousands of years apart, yet the books corellate perfectly with one another.
What exactly was Moses and Johns MOTIVE for this huge conspiracy? *eyeroll*
A firm belief in something doesn't make it real.
naděje umírá poslední
Listen, that was sh*t^^^and a copout and you know it.
Im trying to provide proof to backup what I say and you just spouted an OPINION there.
Are you now going to dispute Historical fact with banal comments like this one? Just curious.
It's not relevant what I think of his post.
naděje umírá poslední
Huh? What are you talking about...
Whose "him" ?
Actually, nevermind. Nice deflection though.
Sorry, I was a bit confused:D
I stand by my point however. Moses' and John's and everyone in between's belief in god does not prove god. It doesn't have to be a conspiracy, it's called faith.
edit: let's continue this in the other thread, it's the same discussion...
naděje umírá poslední
Yeah, how did this happen? Too funny, dual thread arguing.
Anyway, Im getting tired, you are a stubborn, stubborn man!
Second time, I agree with you:D We're getting better at this...
I am stubborn but I think we're not really getting each other's posts...
naděje umírá poslední