Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
How serious is that project since it includes Atlantis and Lemuria?This is the projected future map of the USA.
No need to split it up, that will happen on it's own soon enough.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How serious is that project since it includes Atlantis and Lemuria?This is the projected future map of the USA.
No need to split it up, that will happen on it's own soon enough.
How serious is that project since it includes Atlantis and Lemuria?
I would say the second. Ambiguous statement I feel. Though, I usually find that where a lie is, there is also truth; and where wrong, also right. So I am considering greatly, your words.
You asked: "Do you believe you will be punished for not stopping others from sinning?"
I could say yes* and I could also say no. You have opened a can of worms I feel.
EDIT:
It is interesting that the "yes"* was omitted when I first typed it. Typo. But if we follow the pattern of Christ, and there is only one consciousness per universe, then it appears it must be right.
Thing is, I don't see how. Okay, for one, it's not as if people nowadays haven't heard of the bible or the Abrahamic god. Most people, especially in this country, and we are talking about the U.S. now, have a full understanding of Christianity. Whether or not a person believes in it doesn't say how much they know about it. In fact, as I have often said, one has to have knowledge of something before they can dismiss it entirely. So just because a person doesn't believe it doesn't mean they don't know what it consists of. That being the case do you think that your god expects you to educate people who already know? What do you think he expects of you? Do you think your god so cruel as to punish you, in particular, for not being the one person to change someone else's sinful ways when nothing else in their life has? Don't you think that a bit ridiculous? The message has been spread, vastly, constantly, repetitively, loudly, forcefully. Why should your god expect you to do any more? When it comes down to it are you not commanded to "love thy neighbor", and "judge not..." and many more things that speak of helping and accepting and so on? What do you think your god would find more important to do in your life? Condemn, judge, and lecture others that have not found the same path as you, or love them, be kind to them, and just help one another in the time we all have here on this planet?Perhaps that is why we are so concerned about others. We have a vested interest.
You speak as a woman, which is nice (but will probably annoy the heck out of you).Thing is, I don't see how. Okay, for one, it's not as if people nowadays haven't heard of the bible or the Abrahamic god. Most people, especially in this country, and we are talking about the U.S. now, have a full understanding of Christianity. Whether or not a person believes in it doesn't say how much they know about it. In fact, as I have often said, one has to have knowledge of something before they can dismiss it entirely. So just because a person doesn't believe it doesn't mean they don't know what it consists of. That being the case do you think that your god expects you to educate people who already know? What do you think he expects of you? Do you think your god so cruel as to punish you, in particular, for not being the one person to change someone else's sinful ways when nothing else in their life has? Don't you think that a bit ridiculous? The message has been spread, vastly, constantly, repetitively, loudly, forcefully. Why should your god expect you to do any more? When it comes down to it are you not commanded to "love thy neighbor", and "judge not..." and many more things that speak of helping and accepting and so on? What do you think your god would find more important to do in your life? Condemn, judge, and lecture others that have not found the same path as you, or love them, be kind to them, and just help one another in the time we all have here on this planet?
I am not lookign at a time when England was 'great', I am merely saying that a murderer, for ex, would not have set foot back in society at one time, and now they do, including pedos, and robbers, who might have hundreds of convictions.
You speak as a woman, which is nice (but will probably annoy the heck out of you).
What if.........what if a universe is one consciousness. What if it is one mind. That
would mean that whatever or whoever that one mind is, would answer for everything within it, would it not? What if everyone on this entire planet is not real, but mere pictorial images of consciousness for that One consciousness.
What if each one of us has our OWN universe and therefore has the same problem. It might create many problems,(and overwhelms me slightly) but then each one of us would answer for their own doings, and not the doings of others. Each one of us, when rich and not giving to those poor and starving, would not be giving to ourselves. No one innocent would be hurt. It would all be just. It would all be valid.
What if there is a mirror image of this where male is female and female male? Do we know the mind of God, or are we his keeper? Do we see the end, or even know the beginning? And yet, upon all of this, all things are God, and all things the lord. The saviour has surely the right to be the one held in such esteem. But where then does that leave us. Does that not mean that we are each shaped by someone else? So where then is our freewill. Even now, my freewill is taken away by you. For you have shaped my life for a few brief moments. Perhaps they will be moments I will forget, perhaps they will not.
But is that you talking, or me?
And by the way, what if the message was wrong, incomplete?
Gospel of the Nazirenes
Chap 37
8."So through many changes must you be made perfect, as it is written in the book of Job, 'I am a wanderer, changing place after place and house after house, until I come into the city and mansion which is eternal.'"
This is pretty dumb, as it clearly doesn't make sense. The vast majority of Americans believe in aspects of both. Not all democrats are the same, just like all republicans aren't the same. This is stereotyping to a completely illogical degree.
I guess all laws would be. They are written by people after all, even the laws of your land. You must be happy with them then, so don't complain.That was my very point, though. This time of 'firm-handed justice' was when exactly? I think you're running to a narrative that doesn't reflect reality, and is self-serving, to be honest. Also, any talk of legalities is straying from the topic. Homosexuality, for example, is not illegal, so in what manner does legal discussion impact on this in any case?
I suspect the answer is that you'd prefer theologically based laws. I can understand that, honestly (whilst also vehemently disagreeing). But whose theology? I suspect yours. Can you see why I believe your arguments are self-serving (even though obviously you'd disagree)?
I guess all laws would be. They are written by people after all, even the laws of your land. You must be happy with them then, so don't complain.
Let us say that your government then says: In the interest of freedom, we are now giving part of our wonderful nation to homosxuals so that they suffer no more abuse from various quarters and so that those same quarters will feel less threatened. This is now the law.I must be happy with them? Strange comment.
I'm missing your point. It feels like you have specific instances and grievances, but you are talking about them in an extremely high-level sense.
For the sake of argument, let's focus on homosexuality, since it might be one of the key considerations for you. Not sure, I'm guessing, but...
1) Homosexuality is not illegal in Australia. I am happy with that.
2) Homosexuals cannot marry in Australia. I am unhappy with that.
I don't get to determine the laws based on my own thoughts, although of course I can influence them in the same very limited way any other citizen can.
Laws are not perfect. They never have been, and they never will be. If you argument runs to a common 'things used to be better when...' narrative I have heard before, then by all means please let me know WHEN. None of this has much to do with splitting up a country into various groups based on ethnicity or sexual preference, unless you would see certain sexual preferences as 'immoral' if not illegal, and would see different cultures as incapable of sharing space. I guess that is your argument, although I am struggling to understand why, or how any of your thoughts would relate to actual implementation, even if they were to receive the general support necessary in a democracy.
Pretty random.20,000 feet and climbing...
Out of curiosity, why did you use the words "feel less threatened" in regards to the "various quarters" that are abusive to homosexuals? Are you saying that those who abuse homosexuals do so because they feel threatened by them? Threatened in what way? Does this then affirm that you feel opposition to homosexuality is, in fact, due to fear, to homophobia? If that is so, do you feel that you feel threatened by homosexuals? And if the issue is fear then is not the answer education about and exposure to that which you fear? Doesn't separating homosexuals perpetuate that fear rather than help to overcome it? If one is afraid of snakes then the way to overcome the fear is controlled exposure to snakes and to learn about them. If you never have to deal with them you remain afraid. Same goes with fear of people. If someone is irrationally afraid of certain people then the answer if to educate them and have them interact with them in a safe environment.Let us say that your government then says: In the interest of freedom, we are now giving part of our wonderful nation to homosxuals so that they suffer no more abuse from various quarters and so that those same quarters will feel less threatened. This is now the law.
What would you say?
I did question it at the time, but I couldn't think of another phrase off the top of my head. Don't make too much out of it.Out of curiosity, why did you use the words "feel less threatened" in regards to the "various quarters" that are abusive to homosexuals? Are you saying that those who abuse homosexuals do so because they feel threatened by them? Threatened in what way? Does this then affirm that you feel opposition to homosexuality is, in fact, due to fear, to homophobia? If that is so, do you feel that you feel threatened by homosexuals? And if the issue is fear then is not the answer education about and exposure to that which you fear? Doesn't separating homosexuals perpetuate that fear rather than help to overcome it? If one is afraid of snakes then the way to overcome the fear is controlled exposure to snakes and to learn about them. If you never have to deal with them you remain afraid. Same goes with fear of people. If someone is irrationally afraid of certain people then the answer if to educate them and have them interact with them in a safe environment.
The thing is, with homosexuals having rights, employment rights, marriage rights and so on, those things don't change anyone else's life at all. Unless one is gay then laws affecting gays don't affect you. So the idea that someone doesn't want their life to change falls flat as well.I did question it at the time, but I couldn't think of another phrase off the top of my head. Don't make too much out of it.
But in order to answer it in part, everyone feels threatened about something. It does not have to be a fear as such nor an irrational one. It can just be that someone does not want their life to change. In Italy, immigrants have moved into a village to the point that the villagers are verbally attacking the Mayor. It has changed their way of life you see.
People stand up for what they believe in.
Does that anwer it? I don't know----I'm tired.
You did not respond to my last LONG post.
If we say, for example, that there is a God- then all things effect us. If we allow someone to sin and do nothing about it, the nation will be punished. There is one consciousness and it intereacts.The thing is, with homosexuals having rights, employment rights, marriage rights and so on, those things don't change anyone else's life at all. Unless one is gay then laws affecting gays don't affect you. So the idea that someone doesn't want their life to change falls flat as well.
As for not responding to your other post, to be honest, I just didn't know how to respond to it because I wasn't too sure I was following how it addressed mine. If that makes sense. It seemed more of an internal thought wandering than an actual response and wasn't sure how to address it. What I could gather, or at least what I believed I gathered from it, was that I had you thinking upon what I said, I just wasn't sure where the thinking was leading you.
If we allow someone to sin and do nothing about it,
So you are against prisons then?Dividing God's children up into groups is a much bigger sin than two adults having mutually agreeable sex.
Everybody knows that.
Tom
Oh it always changes lives. You know that.The thing is, with homosexuals having rights, employment rights, marriage rights and so on, those things don't change anyone else's life at all
I think it did. But okay.I wasn't too sure I was following how it addressed mine. If that makes sense
It changes the lives of homosexuals, but not anyone else. No one has ever been able to give any real valid reasoning behind the idea that it affects heterosexuals. What homosexuals do, what jobs they have, where they live, if they get married,...none of it affects me, affects you, affects anyone who is not gay. That is to say, the only way that laws which affect the LGBT are going to affect anyone is if they happen to be LGBT.Oh it always changes lives. You know that.