Total posts: 2,869
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
I understand I can believe in values, morals, and why not in knowledge. Knowledge is freedom.
Again, no reason to use the term "God" for that....
I'm not sure if there is such a higher conscousness. I'm agnostic and I cannot know about that.
Okay, but you could learn about it AND experience it. But why not? you yourself are a sentient conscious being, so why reject the idea of another one? or a higher one? is that really that farfetched? consciousness comes from consciousness...
What I'm pretty sure though is that the "God" the bible refers to is not the higher conciousness you claim it exists. It's impossible to know that.
While I do practice and take insights from the Bible I'm not referring to that. I'm an Omnist meaning that religions are the interpretation of that reality and I learn from all of them. That doesn't mean they are all correct either, thy have truth and they have errors.
What I believe, according to my knowledge of history, is that people made up those stories about a creator as many cultures actually did. The jews were not the only human group that came up with such definitions. There are a plethora of religions out there claimining the same thing, why should I believe the jew's story is the right one? What I believe is that human beings have always tended to create stories in order to explain what they cannot explain, like for example our origins and the creation of this universe. Of course, the easier way to do that is by creating an omnipotent being, but how do we know this is true? All of it was cooked up in people's head, I'm afraid. This is the typical people's behaviour we have to acknwoledge and we don't need to be embarrassed, this is what we are.
You can believe that without making the assumption that people just make things up, why assume that instead of accepting that people are trying to interpret what they are observing? to take the position that everyone is lying I have to ask myself how much have you looked into and researched within spirituality?
Besides, what if these ancient human groups had a sort of contact with alliens and they interpreted this contact as if they were "angels"? The bible refers several times to flying ships and people appearances, so it's not far fetched to think they were alliens. Why rule out these possibilities?
Of course, earth is not the only planet with life. There are more galaxies than anyone could ever count...one would have to be real pin-headed to believe that God created all this just for endless empty galaxies and planets. Actually there are many levels to creation, there are many incarnations and beings on all levels however they all come out of the same Reality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
The idea that someone might suffer tremendously because out of their own free will they decided to reject God seems to be a way that God respects our free will. Can God hardly be blamed? No one is sent to hell by God, they choose to go there.
You're forced to accept that a soul has to undergo eternal torture based on a souls lack of awareness and or lack of self control because you don't want to look at Karma and reincarnation. Those two aspects allow the soul to actually learn from its own experiences and eventually make adjustments. For example a murderer.....if that soul has to experience what it put other souls through, possibly several times over that soul will eventually get the point and those experiences will be ingrained into their consciousness as they gain new bodies. Throw a soul in hell for ever and what does that do? how can anyone learn without a second, third, fourth chance?
Rather hell is just a prison, and if you dare to venture outside your particular set of beliefs you will see that sentences in hell correlate with a persons crimes. However, it is temporal, the point is for the soul to learn not be excommunicated forever, that is nonsense. On top of that, its God's own creation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm not sure how a blank slate can "create" anything without some set of basic tools and some material to sculpt.
I almost can't believe you wrote this, did you come out of your momma's womb who you are now or is who you are now the results of development? this should be common sense. Since the soul was created at a point in time it leaves the Godhead as a seed or like a baby, where it then develops who it is through experience in the world. Pretty simple no? like a new born baby, a newly created soul has no real experience and has not had the chance to develop, hence was not created with "content". Maybe the word content here is not suitable for you? what I mean, is that the soul hasn't had the chance to become what it is without that experience and knowledge.
Do you believe everyone has a "fair shot" at living an ideal life?
Sure, but remember that karma and reincarnation play a huge role in what the soul experiences or has to learn from so within reincarnation lifetimes are virtually endless. But my answer is yes, of course but I have no control over that and not sure what that question has to do with what I'm saying.
How exactly does an "empty cup" "choose" what it experiences? Does an infant decide to have abusive or neglectful or loving parents? Does a family choose to be born into a war zone?
I fail to see what this has to do with the soul leaving the Godhead as an empty vessel or seed.....I never said it chooses what it experiences, I said it develops who it is THROUGH experience just as you did no? Although a souls desires play some role in where it ends up, mostly in this world what we experience is entangled with Karma so naturally there will be many unfortunate events that are out of our control. But if you want to discuss Karma that's a whole separate discussion and has many dynamics involved and as well I'm not going to judge anyone's circumstances other than my own. What I'm talking about, is the very beginning state of the soul as it leaves the Creator. This could be the souls first experience in the world, or it could be an old soul and returning to this world...either way it is not created already developed.
I see, so do you imagine that "human life" is some sort of absurd obstacle course or quality control sorting booth?
Funny, but if you knew that the soul does in fact exist then it shouldn't be to hard to comprehend that this life is a testing grounds....and you see that everywhere you look, as well as cyclical activity. You can label it absurd of course, but it is the very nature of the soul to learn and experience through life.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
As you can see Keith, ET is so far gone bat shit crazy, he believes his insane delusions are facts.
Thayt's why I'm not in the mood to argue with him.
No, I only say crap I don't believe lol, you guys are unbelievable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
I believe in knowledge I have of "God". It's not my intention to make you doubt about your beliefs, but "God" is more of knowledge than of a real object. "God" exists, of course, as well as "happiness" exists and "evil" exists.
Knowledge in and of itself is not classified as God, I'm not really sure what your point is. If you don't believe in an intelligent higher power then there is no need to use that term.
"God" is then a concept that we all human beings need to understand for our own sake as species.
The concept, in your view has become irrelevant I believe. If I may ask, what problem do you have with God as a higher conscious Being?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Teach away then, let's see what ya got to offer. As of yet, members should be asking themselves why you are here in the religion forums and should they be interacting with you at all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
So you admit there is no room for learning things outside your own paradigms? are you sure you want to admit that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@b9_ntt
Haha, awesome, sounds good. Don't be shy to add topics either, we need some new questions and arguments.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I know bro, I know you believe that but give this a chance. There is more to this than you may realize, hang in there my friend.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@b9_ntt
My guess would be that most people learn about the other through interactions. It does seem lazy though, I'm guilty as well. Great to have you here, you come across as polite and we need that here :)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I meant your god seems based on the Abrahamic god, not on (eg) Thor, Vishnu or some Aztec deity.
By now you should know my position, religions are the interpretation of the same reality albeit a dynamic one...so I don't pick any one religious source I learn from them all. I did however, touch on misconceptions about the Bible but my statements refer to God in general meaning there should be no contradiction within any religion with what I put forward. It's universal truths.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
It seems God is a lot nicer in real life than he is portrayed in the Bible.
Not everything in the Bible is accurate, that's what I've been trying to get through to people. Religions have good information, both accurate and inaccurate. It's okay to dispose of the trash and misconceptions. Having said that, the Bible has a lot of spiritual depth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
As to "God", I disagree since it's not a person, let alone a living being.
So in other words you don't believe God exists? or you have another idea about God?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
It seems to me Ev imagines god as YHWH with some of his more obvious warts removed.
Lol, why does only the Bible ever get to share facts about God? is that the only perception you people accept?? seems yal want God to be stupid, fine.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
In Ev's case he just made up a god he'd like there to be.
Nice assertion, let me know what you disagree with and why you disagree with it. I don't need to make anything up, not when there are facts involved.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lernaean
I don't know if this helps, but I like to break things down to positive and negative and whether or not someone has been influenced or affected by either. In terms of the personal life of any one individual there is less of a matter of right and wrong, or positive and negative but when you add another party to the mix the dynamics change drastically because now the potential to effect someone is a reality, rather than just the self. So to make things simple, one can break things down to whether or not they are effecting someone in a positive way or a negative way. The same could be said for the individual and whether or not their choices impact themselves positively or negatively. There's a lot of grey area here though, and in this case things that are neither positive or negative are just neutral.
This should be pretty easy to distinguish if something is going to have positive or negative effect or if something is just neutral, by the impact it may have on someone or something. Beliefs and the lack thereof really play no part in this, this is about actions, positive and negative (right and wrong) are only viable in our interactions and therefore it should be simple to know whether something is going to be good or bad for the self or for another person. But again, there is also the neutral grounds and moral "rules" fall in this category because they are just rules. Nothing counts until actions are taken and until someone or something (environment) has been impacted by it.
Created:
Posted in:
….The Creator is not as stupid as people make God out to be
Faith is an action that produces results, not empty beliefs with no reason to believe in them. It is a spiritual element based on trust and confidence so that the individual may develop substance and effective power to overcome obstacles
Spirituality is objective not subjective
God cares for the individual soul, not specific groups of people and special clubs
God does not preordain some people in heaven and some in hell
Hell is not an eternal torture pit, it's a temporal prison for crimes committed against creation
God does not create evil, evil is produced through individual motives it is not a thing rather a course of action
God does not hide from people, rather spirituality is a process and God wants the soul to learn from that process and part of that cultivation involves a much deeper objective than for God just to appear to people. In other words there is a reason God wants you to dig deeper
God does not form the individualized soul with preexisting content and conditions, content and conditions are developed through many factors which involves the soul and its desires and perceptions. God creates the soul with a creative imagination, but not with a predisposition
God does not control everything or predestinate the souls choices. God grants the soul the ability to become a co-creator in creation without intruding on its abilities, attributes and decisions
Spirituality does not cause or make people do evil and stupid things, the person was already evil, unintelligent and stupid, beliefs are irrelevant to that
Theism is not without evidence, does not lack evidence rather spirituality is SIMPLY of a different nature than that which we observe in the physical aspect of our experience and quite frankly is chock full of evidence that correlates with that specific nature
God is not limited to one religion, one belief, one universe or one or two places of an afterlife. Rather religion is limited, the universe is limited and our personal experiences are limited. God is eternal and unimaginably creative and unlimited
God is not rigid, mean or one-dimensional. God expresses itself through creation in so many ways and is extremely dynamic
God is not limited to our personal perceptions and so be careful how you label and judge God
God is not stupid and if the average person knew what exists within the God-worlds they would be shocked on so many levels
God has a specific, personal journey for each soul and no one is left behind, you are all a part of the very heart of the Creator
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
One thing you, Ev, don't do is offer an alternative definition, although you do say what it is not. 'Faith is an action' is not a definition
Faith is trust and confidence, try reading what I write. Thanks.
FAITH- trust or confidence in someone or something.
Created:
Posted in:
And of course, before someone interprets that passage in Matthew as literally moving mountains check yourself, what Jesus is showing is how faith is used to overcome obstacles whatever they may be for the individual.
Created:
Posted in:
There is no such thing as faith without evidence or reasoning, that is a major misconception and all you have to do is read the Gospels (rather than a secular dictionary), which is where the faith Jesus exemplifies originated. Faith is not a substitute for unfounded beliefs, that means nothing, rather faith is a spiritual tool which correlates with confidence and trust.....BOTH confidence and trust are based on evidence, experience and knowing. Read the Gospels people if you really want to know what it means. Hebrews 11 is misquoted, it doesn't mean to believe with no evidence or reason and goes on to give examples of the opposite.
Hebrews 11
But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
How can a person believe that God is without having evidence and reason to do so??
Matthew 17
20 And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.
FAITH is an ACTION, not an empty belief.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Not to quibble but don't you mean you study the secondhand testimonial/anecdotal evidence provided by those who claim to have had such an experience?
Call it what it is, first hand testimonial evidence, which is the most straight forward kind. Down play it all you like but again, you are free to ignore it but that won't make the reality of it go away. So quibble on all ya want.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
You have had a near death experience?
I don't have to die to have spiritual encounters, what does this have to do with my cross examination of such accounts? the reason I study them and know they are legit is because of my own experiences, some in which we've already been over.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Unfortunately testimony is anecdotal evidence and anecdotal evidence is insufficient to claim knowledge.
Oh really now? but, is that all I provided as a mean to indicate something? or are you just being a smart azz again? This is why I have a hard time communicating with you, I never get the impression you give a shit about what I have said. You can label it whatever you want, but there is more testimonial evidence for the soul than any other one thing. Only a true knuckle head would mock that but oh well, we will all be leaving the body so it doesn't really matter if you believe in it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Are you suggesting that god did not create humans with instincts that drive (motivate, animate, inspire) these desires (aka, wishies)?
God does not upload a soul with content, the soul creates its own content however God does create the soul. But more like an empty cup sent into the worlds of duality where it gains whatever content it wishes through experience and perceptions.
Are you suggesting that god did not place these enticements to "evil" within human grasp?
Correct. Enticements are developed not created.
Are you suggesting that god is powerless to remove dangerous ("evil") enticements from reach in order to protect the human?
Not powerless, the soul learns through its own experiences and desires, that's why it is not classified as a robot but a sentient being capable of choosing. The only way a soul can learn is to experience it, if God were to take away that aspect there would be no reason for the soul to be here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
But why does not tempting man with evil mean God did not create evil?
Because evil is the result of actions, it's not a thing. First, man has to be enticed through the mind and emotions to commit an evil act. If God did not cause that enticement, then God did not "create" it. God does not create that enticement, man is enticed through what he wishes to entertain through his personal state of awareness, then comes actions, which either produces evil or good, love or hate and everything in between.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Are you trying to say that god always does what is ultimately good in the long-run-bigger-picture sense, but in the short-term-small-picture sense it might appear to be "evil" to human block-heads?
Not really.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
Evil is not an object, obviously. But neither is love, and theists say God created love. Are you two saying that God only created physical objects but no abstract concepts? I must be misunderstanding. That would mean he is not responsible for the creation of constructs like evil, love, or morality.
Actually, in the full conscious state of God there is no duality, as duality does not exist in a singular reality. Again, God can't create love or evil, God can only express those things through creation. Like evil, love is also not an object and I believe the correct statement in the Bible is God IS love, not created love. This is a workable saying, not God created love that makes no sense.
It's true that biblical critics like to use that particular passage as a "gotcha" line, but the vibes I get from it are more creation, totality, balance, yin/yang. It's not a declaration of malevolence. But I do think it's saying God created evil because evil is part of everything and God created everything.
I can see that, but again it's worded poorly making it mean nothing. I don't think that particular chapter is meant to interpret as literal because of the poetic illustrations. It comes across to me as the author trying to build confidence in the person it was addressed to.
And I'm afraid I've never been able to reconcile the parts of the Bible that say God never tempts humans with the other parts that say he does. But why does not tempting man with evil mean God did not create evil?
Well consider what I'm saying here firstly, that evil and love are not created they are expressions of actions, then both chapters can be reconciled. You will have to accept that the verse in Isaiah used words that are incorrect or just written poetically to make a point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Lol try asking, that may help if you want to know my answers.
The dynamics are as follows because we are dealing with two conditions not just one, actually many conditions. God is making decisions from a full conscious state of awareness and being, whereas we as individual souls are making decisions from varying limited states of awareness whatever they are. And to make things worse, we as individuals give strength to our habits and states of awareness becoming co-creators with God in a dualistic environment. If this were not so, there would be no Karma, no sowing and reaping as it wouldn't matter if there were no distinction.
God is not omnipotent, or omniscient....God is only omnipresent.
Having said that, God has access to every channel of awareness but the individual soul is learning through their actions....
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Since evil is not a thing or object, but rather a result of an action it can't be "created" like a thing or object, it is the result of someone's actions. If one wishes to argue that all actions are the result of God's doing, then that would be a proper argument although seriously misunderstood because of the dynamics involved.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
When people use that verse that says that God "creates" evil, I think they get the wrong impression and TBH at face value the wording is poorly written. It does say that, but that would be ignoring the tone of the chapter and how it writes poetically to make a point to the person the chapter was addressed to. Since evil is not a thing, it can't be "created".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
I'm just asking Trade what he thinks of the passage. To me it seems to indicate that creating a positive necessarily creates a negative, but that God is still the author of that negative as much as he is the author of the positive. Without contrast, nothing has definition. But who made that rule?
Are you still under the impression that evil is a thing or an object though rather than a particular action or results of an action?
With that asked, do you think you could reconcile that chapter with this one?
James 1
13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
16 Do not err, my beloved brethren.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
Not to justify that passage just yet, but have you read that whole chapter?
Even if we conclude from that verse alone that God "creates" evil, it's still not an object or a thing. I'll tell you what, read that chapter in full and then I'll post another passage that may balance that one out. First read that chapter (not just that verse) and tell me what ya think.
Created:
-->
@disgusted
Don't respond to me
Listen to your own words twerp. I have you blocked because you are an idiot, don't mention my name.
Created:
-->
@disgusted
I'm sure it was, easy pickings.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Wouldn't surprise me none.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
Demonstrate the creator
So now this is about demonstration and not a discussion?
and then convince every religion ever, each of them exclusive of the other, that they were all wrong and YOU'RE right.
I don't have to, they can believe whatever they want, it is obvious and the alternative is baloney. Very simple.
Then maybe someone with an omnist view can just say "I don't want to play by the rules of the experiment" and not post?
It is you that doesn't want to play, not me. I can't play that game because that is not my beliefs. If you don't want to discuss this from this angle fine, bye bye.
There's a whole thread on justifying why you believe what you believe. This thread's about what you'd do if presented with incontrovertible evidence that WHATEVER you believe is 100%, undoubtedly incorrect, and you have the chance to recant or be punished for what then becomes willful ignorance. You don't believe in eternal punishment, okay, but that wouldn't stop you from being eternally punished in this scenario. I think you're like the other two theists who voted: they'd rather cling to their beliefs in the face of fact.
This is simply a strawman which is why it can't be answered.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
To my knowledge there is no real laboratory data on the phenomena
Is this supposed to be funny? if not, then we have a long way to go.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
This is not how the word is used in scientific endeavours. Please do not conflate your personal "theories" with scientific theory.
Read that again.
My first question is what makes you an authority on NDEs? To my knowledge there is no real laboratory data on the phenomena.
I'm not an authority but I definitely can speak from experience as well I study NDE's. If you would like to call me an authority on that, that is fine but that is not what I said. Perhaps if you stick with what is said this could be pleasant rather than hostile.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
I'm not sure how that pertains the thought experiment at hand.
Why not? do you know what Omnist means?
You've voted, you already took on punishment. In fact, you even say if it WAS Jesus, you wouldn't believe it was Jesus! I don't get you at all. EDIT: This was for Mopac, not you Eternal. This next one's for you.
wasn't always in this position I had to come to a place where I know this is true and I can answer anything you need to know.
I'd ask how you know you're right and everyone else is wrong,
I never said everyone was wrong, and who is everyone? I'm not the only Omnist. I'm simply pointing out that all religions have truth and errors, this is also obvious correct?
what is the proof and why so few agree with you.
It's obvious and common sense. Why would God only relate to one group of people when every soul comes from the Creator? common sense man....
But I think the words realms and planes and spiritual and revelation will be in there, the hallmarks of bullshit deepities.
Lol let me know what it is you want to know or ask.
It's also not the topic at hand.
I'm giving you another angle to look at this from, do you have a problem with that?
TO make your view the topic at hand, the being that shows up is not ALL gods, and doesn't agree with you, you've been wrong, but it's willing to allow you to continue your existence and avoid eternal punishment provided that you renounce your former convictions as false. Would you do so? Say "I am clearly wrong, you are the true deity," or would you say "Well in fairness to me, I believed in ALL gods and religions, so technically, I DID believe in you" knowing that this being would be able to unequivocally confirm if it was in your venn diagram of viable deities.
Someone with an Omnist view doesn't have to do any of that, which is my point. And there is no eternal punishment, that's a farce. Religions are observing from the same source mixed in with many things.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
You use the word theory when you clearly mean hypothesis (or more likely conjecture).
Theory- a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something,
I don't know what you mean by energy acting as intelligent.
Really? that's weird, you ARE intelligence lol.....
NDEs are impossible to observe except to the one experiencing them and we cannot confirm or deny them
That's why I count them as evidence not facts, meaning a proposition that indicates whether something is true or valid....you do know what indicates means right? however I don't need them in my own examination as I have had my own direct experiences. I use other experiences as a source of cross referencing.
as humans without the observations of an organic brain i.e. the person who supposedly had the nde telling us about their experience.
Let me know if you have any questions or wish to discuss something.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
This is why an omnist view of spirituality and religion makes mores sense and in all aspects superior, because then the position is that religions are observing and interpreting basically the same reality with many dynamics involved rather than one particular group of people that have the only truth about God, have the only answers, that is nonsense and completely immature. God doesn't speak or give revelations to only one group of people and leave everyone else in the dirt, no that is not how this works. All religions and paths of spirituality have truths and errors as the process of spirituality is about observing what is true and what is baloney and this involves religious knowledge as a whole.
If this interests you at all feel free to test it and ask whatever you want about it. I wasn't always in this position I had to come to a place where I know this is true and I can answer anything you need to know.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Sorry it took me awhile to get back. Yes if the superstring hypothesis is correct then we are all composed of the same.eneegy.
No worries, it is correct. To me it is obvious but that's irrelevant of course.
I am uncertain how this suggest a any conciousness that exists without matter ( a particular kind of energy)
It aligns with my theory that all of creation and all life/energy come out of a singular Reality was my main point. That's a good start eh? first I had to get you to recognize the material/physical part of it. From there it's all about arguments, commons sense, logic, cross referencing and even on one level evidence. Evidence being that which indicates a proposition true or valid. But, I won't even go there (with evidence) because you know what type of evidences I correlate with and we will probably only argue in circles over that aspect. Having said that, creation is not just an empty claim or belief, it has sufficient warrant to accept or embrace it. That wouldn't be the final card though since spirituality is about experience and learning from experiences not just believing in things, but first one has to come to a place where they can accept that a Creator most likely exists then they can play with getting involved at a much deeper level.
But again, you have to be asking yourself why energy is acting as intelligence and not just inanimate matter. Why does energy create like it is sentient, how could inanimate matter create animation/intelligence? so why is it so hard to accept that there was first an intelligent Source that establishes the universe and creates forms and embodiments? it seems to me you have to accept more of an absurd conclusion/belief to be a materialist/atheist when I thought the whole point was to follow where truth and logic lead, that rarely happens to be quite frank.
as every conciousness ever observed is connected to a brain made of matter and stops being observable if the brain in question is destroyed or ceases to function .
This claim gets repeated by materialists but it's false, it is a poor assumption TBH. You could only claim that if NDE's, OBE's, soul travel, spirituality and religion never existed, and never made claims of experiences that are flat out contrary to that. So I don't know where you get the confidence to say that, as it doesn't come across as honest, even though you are being sincere. You can't pretend that all the sources that claim otherwise don't exist, if you wanted to be honest with yourself you would have to include all of that in your evaluations.
I've been taking a break from the forums lately but I got your response through my email so I'd figure I would at least get back to ya just in case you were actually interested in something we are discussing.
Created:
Posted in:
Alright guys and gals, it's been years some of us have known each other and many years sharing knowledge and ideas but I've come to the point where I look at all these discussions taking place every single day and nothing is changing, almost nothing period. I have to ask myself is this constant exchange of information worth anything at all, just to have people hold their paradigms and doubts like treasures? to listen to some of yal repeating the same things over and over even though many correct answers have come down the pike is quite disheartening.
Though I do in fact love to challenge my beliefs and I don't believe I have all the answers either but TBH that is not the only reason I do this, I like to give people access to interesting concepts and accurate knowledge. I can challenge my own beliefs without anyone arguing them, kinda the way my brain works it figures all this out for itself like autopilot examining every angle of possibilities. But having said that I love all of you I'm just going to take a break and work on my own spirituality for a time and really dig in, feel like it's time to get even deeper within that reality. Maybe I'll be back in the future (not that anyone cares obviously, sure I'll be mocked), I'll certainly be reading through these forums for years to come, I'm much more a reader than a keyboarder. Some of you have access to my FB page you can hit me up there if ya want :) God bless folks, been real...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Deb-8-a-bul, stronn or Janesix. Not sure which one yet. I might even squeeze in Keithprosser for the wise man with a dunce cap for a runner up.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Lol, I'd love to see what this member has in mind. Hopefully it will respond.
Created:
Posted in:
I should make the distinction between Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy in regards to the Papacy but they still believe in Apostolic succession, which is pure baloney. There is no spiritual lineage of anyone apostolic. It's the true applicants of the Gospels that are the equivalent of a "succession".
Created: