Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

Apocrypha Books


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 101-125 of 165 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 12 Jul 2012 04:33:03 BDT
Last edited by the author on 12 Jul 2012 04:36:06 BDT
light says:
Withnail,

No can do, that atheist angel will have to have his wings clipped so that it doesn't get too far off the ground. I just read an interesting quote from Einstien today:

"Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand."

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Jul 2012 04:50:27 BDT
light says:
Wayne,

I understand what you are saying, I don't believe in god the same way as you do. That doesn't make either of us wrong. Everyone is unique in their own way so god reaches us in a way that will touch us individually. God is Universal and he reaches through us through our culture and in spite of the barriers that culture can create, God reaches us in spite of doctrine. God has reached you in a way that you can understand and accept and god has reached me in a way that is unique to me, everyone has their own unique relationship with god and all of creation, he wouldn't punish anyone for an individual understanding of god/life/creation.

Doesn't the sun shine on the righteous and the unrighteous and the rain falls down on everyone as well? (Sorry, the rain comment is meant in general I know that there are some parched lands). I won't be excluded because I look for deeper meaning in scripture.

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Jul 2012 05:15:10 BDT
Last edited by the author on 12 Jul 2012 05:19:10 BDT
light says:
Spin,

What a coincidence that you should mention the Tower of Babel, I was just thinking about that story yesterday. Yes indeed, mankind trying to build a tower/channel to reach the heavens, so that they can make a name for themselves, can you imagine that?

You said, "That is, his internal expression of thought will be represented using signs employed in the english language, simply because we are taught to think in terms of our language; our thoughts are structured around the semantics and syntax of language. Such is our love of "unique" and "original" thought, (be it religious, scientific or artistic) for such thought has broken free of the mental limitations placed on us by language. If language restricts our thought, it restricts our thought concerning Deity."

I agree that god would not use language to communicate with mankind, I've heard that pictures and symbols, in the mind, are the universal languages of God. The way I understand it, is that god speaks through intuition, an inner-knowing, he speaks to our heart and to our mind, feelings, emotions and intuition, words can not express these concepts completely.

I have a story I would like to tell you, take it for what it's worth:

My daughter works with autistic children, one of them has been brought to her so that he can be evaluated because he will be attending a new school next season. The boy can't speak but he has been taught to type, this is a newer technique and there is high hopes for this type of teaching. Anyhow, he only types for his mother, he won't type for his teachers, so they brought him to my daughter and her team to see if they could figure out what the problem is.

When the boy was alone with my daughter he typed for her, so the team met with his mother to tell her the good news. The mother was so excited that she asked him if he would type for his new teachers and he wrote, "NO". Everyone was very surprised at his answer. So they asked him why not? He typed his reply, "Because they don't believe."

Everyone looked at eachother with astonishment and tears in their eyes.

Belief is so very important, and I don't think that he meant god, although who knows I don't want to speak for him. He could somehow tell that his teachers didn't believe in the new program or they didn't believe that he could do it. This little boy could somehow tell who believed and who did not and was only willing to type for those who believed......

This confirms my thoughts on people with autism and alzheimers, they understand way more than they can convey to us.

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Jul 2012 08:19:45 BDT
Light,

I agree that everyone has their own unique relationship with God, but I might disagree with 'he wouldn't punish anyone for an individual understanding of god/life/creation' - I can't reconcile the Yorkshire Ripper's unique relationship with his god (who told him to do it) with my God.

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Jul 2012 08:27:57 BDT
K. Hoyles says:
You are a true romantic, light.

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Jul 2012 21:58:46 BDT
light says:
Wayne,

" I can't reconcile the Yorkshire Ripper's unique relationship with his god (who told him to do it) with my God."

I don't know of anyone who would reconcile something like that. That's not normal.

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Jul 2012 22:50:17 BDT
But your statement says that God wouldn't punish Sutcliffe for his understanding of god/life/creation. Your methodology either works for all situations or is useless.

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Jul 2012 04:57:11 BDT
Last edited by the author on 13 Jul 2012 05:03:37 BDT
light says:
Wayne,

First of all I never said that god wouldn't punish Sutcliffe, it is you who uses my statement to allude to such a ridiculous idea. Obviously he was mentally ill I don't know how god would deal with mentally ill criminals, do you? Or maybe if he was a Christian he is saved, according to certain doctrine and he will be in heaven regardless of his crimes.

Do these statements sound sane to you?

"Weeks later he claimed God had told him to murder the women. At his trial, Sutcliffe pleaded not guilty to 13 counts of murder, but guilty to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility. The basis of this defence was his claim that he was the tool of God's will. Sutcliffe first claimed to have heard voices while working as a gravedigger, that ultimately ordered him to kill prostitutes. He claimed that the voices originated from a headstone of a deceased Polish man, Bronisław Zapolski, and that the voices were that of God."

" The prosecution intended to accept Sutcliffe's plea after four psychiatrists diagnosed him with paranoid schizophrenia. However, the trial judge, Mr Justice Boreham, demanded an unusually detailed explanation of the prosecution reasoning."

So he was not listening to the words of his god rather listening to his illness, or feigned illness, but could anyone who is not mentally ill commit such crimes?

You said" Your methodology either works for all situations or is useless."

I say, it's no more useless than saying only Christians go to heaven.

Posted on 13 Jul 2012 12:08:06 BDT
To quote your own words light

"everyone has their own unique relationship with god and all of creation, he wouldn't punish anyone for an individual understanding of god/life/creation. "

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Jul 2012 20:42:09 BDT
Light,

"First of all I never said that god wouldn't punish Sutcliffe, it is you who uses my statement to allude to such a ridiculous idea."

No, you are wrong it was not my idea, it was yours. To quote your earlier post: "everyone has their own unique relationship with god and all of creation, he wouldn't punish anyone for an individual understanding of god/life/creation."

Thus you are of the opinion that everyone has a unique relationship with god and creation (including Sutcliffe) and God wouldn't punish anyone for their individual understanding (including Sutcliffe).

To me your view is illogical and unsustainable, hence the reasons for questioning it (and using an extreme case to show why it is illogical and unsustainable).

Personally my view of Sutcliffe is that his claim that God told him to do it was merely a ploy to get diagnosed as mentally unstable. I think there was something mentally wrong with him, but nothing to do with God.

If he was a Christian (doubtful in the extreme) he still has to answer for his crimes both on Earth and in Heaven.

I don't say that only Christians go to heaven. On the contrary it is my belief that there are many who profess Christian faith, even go through the motions, but whom will not get to heaven (as Jesus indicates with the parable of the Sheep and Goats and elsewhere).

Your methodology appears to be that anyone who believes in god has equal validity, regardless of how that expression of faith works out. By that criterion, a person who believes that God tells them to rape and/or kill is as valid is the person who believes that God tells them to go out and feed the hungry and poor. Without some objective measure, there is no way of telling which viewpoint is correct or not. And if you have an objective measure (say a religious book, for example) the whole thing is either valid or not, else it is not objective. Hence my reasons for using the Bible as the measure of God's will, not my own personal desires or 'unique relationship with god'

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Jul 2012 04:26:38 BDT
light says:
Occam,

I prefer to use the entire sentence, "God has reached you in a way that you can understand and accept and god has reached me in a way that is unique to me, everyone has their own unique relationship with god and all of creation, he wouldn't punish anyone for an individual understanding of god/life/creation."

What I mean by, everyone has their own unique relationship with god is, everyone who believes in god has their own unique relationship with him, of course that doesn't apply to atheists or people who only use god as an excuse to do bad things, kill, rape and acts of terrorism....... quoting partial sentences loses the meaning of what I intended to put forth.

So, I'm not talking about someone who has committed a crime, I am talking about someone's relationship with god. A true understanding of a relationship with god does not include raping and killing and blaming it on god, but then I'm sure you know that.

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Jul 2012 05:09:00 BDT
Last edited by the author on 14 Jul 2012 05:17:41 BDT
light says:
Wayne,

I would like to tell you as well, to use my entire sentence to keep it in context with what we were talking about, ""God has reached you in a way that you can understand and accept and god has reached me in a way that is unique to me, everyone has their own unique relationship with god and all of creation, he wouldn't punish anyone for an individual understanding of god/life/creation."

I was not talking about people who commit crimes and say that god told them to say do it, I was talking about different religions and how they relate with god, I think know that. I wonder if Jesus took people's words out of context and used it against them to make it look like they support the murder and rape of innocent women and children as a relationship with God according to one's unique understanding of God?

You said, "Thus you are of the opinion that everyone has a unique relationship with god and creation (including Sutcliffe) and God wouldn't punish anyone for their individual understanding (including Sutcliffe)."

Sutcliff wasn't going by an understanding of god, he was going by what was inside his head according to his mental illness, and what was inside his head told him that god said to do those horrendous things, there is a difference.

You said, "Personally my view of Sutcliffe is that his claim that God told him to do it was merely a ploy to get diagnosed as mentally unstable. I think there was something mentally wrong with him, but nothing to do with God."

Exactly my point as well.

Jesus said that "everyone" will be held accountable for every careless word they have spoken, this includes Christians, I would like to add, whether they are on a forum or in real life.

You said, "Your methodology appears to be that anyone who believes in god has equal validity, regardless of how that expression of faith works out. By that criterion, a person who believes that God tells them to rape and/or kill is as valid is the person who believes that God tells them to go out and feed the hungry and poor."

Yes, I do say that everyone who believes in god has equal validity whether they are Buddhists, Hindus, Spiritualists, Christians, Jews.....and so do Atheists and Agnostics, (because god knows what's in the heart and mind), but I do "not" say that killing and using god as the reason has any validity at all. I think you know the difference.

You don't know me and therefore can't judge what my methodology is. A man is known by his fruit because words can be deceiving, just oranges don't grow on apple trees. Jesus was badly against religious hypocrites, professing Christians are not exempt from Jesus' wrath on hypocrisy. People who claim to have faith but show no works or gratitude and appreciation are not really Jesus' brothers, sisters, mothers or disciples, are they?

You want to use the bible as an objective measure, didn't Jesus say that not everyone who says, "Lord, Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven but only those who do the will of his Father? The will of the Father does not include killing and raping women and children, so I would not justify it either. I also use the bible as a reference, but I also understand that there have been some mistranslations and some intentional additions and deletions, per Emperor Constantine and Emperor Justinian. But the jest of the matter remains on righteous living and proper behavior.

You said, "I don't say that only Christians go to heaven. On the contrary it is my belief that there are many who profess Christian faith, even go through the motions, but whom will not get to heaven (as Jesus indicates with the parable of the Sheep and Goats and elsewhere)."

Yes there are many Christian hypocrites, wolves in sheep's clothing, but you didn't mention what happens to people who are not Christian but who show the works of the Christ spirit?

There are many good people out there who feed the hungry, clothe the poor, and visit the sick and the prisoners, and they are not Christians, but they may be Buddhists, Hindus, Spiritualists, Atheists and Agnostics.

I would never justify a person who kills in the name of god or says that god told them to do it, I think it's terrible that you would even suggest that I would include that in an understanding or a relationship with god.

I think it's safe to say that god sees the person, not his religion, doctrine or lack of religion.

James 1:26-27, "If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight reign on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless. Religion that God accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after the orphans and widows in their distress and keep oneself from being polluted by worldy living."

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Jul 2012 08:06:15 BDT
So, if someone rapes and murders because they sincerely believe that God told them to...?

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Jul 2012 09:37:51 BDT
Drew Jones says:
"I wonder if Jesus took people's words out of context and used it against them to make it look like they support the murder and rape of innocent women and children as a relationship with God according to one's unique understanding of God?"
You weren't taken out of context. Everybody took your original words very much in context, you badly expressed yourself by failing to qualify what you believe.

I wish people wouldn't abuse the claim to be taken out of context like this.

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Jul 2012 14:23:10 BDT
Light, Once again I disagree - Even adding the full sentence, you still allow for those who believe God has told them to kill: "God has reached you in a way that you can understand and accept and god has reached me in a way that is unique to me..." and God has reached Sutcliffe in a way that is unique to to him. The sentence as a whole still allows for absolutely any interpretation.

"A true understanding of a relationship with god does not include raping and killing and blaming it on god." Who says? If you allow for an individual interpretation of God, then it can include anything you as an individual want it to: You create and worship the god you want to and if that god allows for rape and killing then who is to say that your interpretation is wrong - after all it is your interpretation?

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Jul 2012 14:45:23 BDT
Light,

As I said above quoting the full sentence makes no difference to the interpretation - either you accept anyone's interpretation or you have an objective reason for believing theirs is wrong. In my case I can say that the Bible says "you shall not murder", but along with that there are a number of other things that I don't agree with but have to accept, such as rules for homosexuals or witches. If I liberalise one, there is nothing to say that one cannot liberalise the other - in other words the religion becomes a pick'n'mix and then has nothing to do with the God of the Bible.

We might agree that Sutcliffe was mentally unstable, but you need to back up your claim that his view of God has no validity.

"Yes, I do say that everyone who believes in god has equal validity whether they are Buddhists, Hindus, Spiritualists, Christians, Jews." So how do you reconcile "no-one comes to the Father except through the Son [Jesus]". That is a very exclusivist claim - it means that Buddhists, Hindus, Spiritualists, Muslims etc. cannot come before God and thus cannot have equal validity. Buddhists don't even believe in a god!

And we are talking about modern religions... but what about ancient ones such Baal worship which included infant sacrifice? Did that have equal validity? The people who undertook such travesty were not mentally unstable, they were just misguided. Similarly the Aztecs for whom being a sacrifice was a great honour.

"You want to use the bible as an objective measure, didn't Jesus say that not everyone who says, "Lord, Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven but only those who do the will of his Father? The will of the Father does not include killing and raping women and children, so I would not justify it either." It also says you will have no other gods before me - thus ruling out Hinduism and worship the Lord your God only (ruling out Buddhists).

"I also use the bible as a reference, but I also understand that there have been some mistranslations and some intentional additions and deletions, per Emperor Constantine and Emperor Justinian." Then you understand wrongly. Neither had any impact on the additions or deletions except that Constantine ordered a canon of scripture to be created and a Council was formed to do this (Nicea) - he had no impact on it himself.

Also you then end up with an innefectual God - one who is unable to influence the creation of a Bible that would be valid for centuries.

The more we talk, the more vague and unsatisfying your god is and the more certain I am that my God is supreme. But I am convinced that my God and your god are not the same in any way because mine is powerful and yours is powerless.

You might think it terrible that I would suggest that you condone a God who allows murder (technically not the same as killing), but you have no rationale for condemning such a view of God under your 'all roads lead to God" theology.

You quote James, but how do you know that this is not one of the passages (or even books) that was not mistranslated, added to or deleted from via Constantine or Justinian? Luther thought that James should be removed from the Bible.

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Jul 2012 17:21:15 BDT
"there are a number of other things that I don't agree with but have to accept, such as rules for homosexuals or witches. If I liberalise one, there is nothing to say that one cannot liberalise the other - in other words the religion becomes a pick'n'mix and then has nothing to do with the God of the Bible."

Why would you accept things that compromise your own morality? You don't need the Bible to tell you what's right and wrong - you seem to be saying that you know this - so why go with it when it's obviously wrong about so many things?

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Jul 2012 18:59:20 BDT
Sam,

Without the Bible what reason is their to assume ANYTHING is right or wrong?

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Jul 2012 20:29:52 BDT
Without the Bible, right and wrong would still be the same...

...except that there'd be a little less wrong in the world.

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Jul 2012 21:46:53 BDT
AJ Murray says:
That's something i never understood. If your deity exists, is personal, and wants to communicate to people, presumably it can at anytime. All people have to do is ask yes?

Why would you need a book?

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Jul 2012 22:24:21 BDT
light says:
Burchell,

If I remember correctly, you are a Christian, so you pretty much know the good things that god wants people to do and those things are universal no matter what religion someone belongs to, or if someone is an Atheists or Agnostic. Even if someone is not a Christian it doesn't mean that they way they understand god through whatever religion they belong too doesn't automatically make them murdering, raping heathens. And if someone does murder and rape it doesn't mean that god told them to do it even if they think they heard it in their mind, if they did hear it in their mind they are mentally ill like Sutcliff. I'm sure you understand as a Christian that god doesn't tell people to kill and rape and neither does he in any other religion, if they do those things they are doing it on their own accord.

I'm pretty sure that god wouldn't like it when Christians call other people's religions false and they are automatically going to hell because of the way they worship him or understand him.

You said,'' You create and worship the god you want to and if that god allows for rape and killing then who is to say that your interpretation is wrong - after all it is your interpretation?"

Does that include your god? or just everyone else's god?

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Jul 2012 22:42:31 BDT
I disagree - how does morality come about? It is certainly not a social thing as can be seen by nazism

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Jul 2012 22:44:11 BDT
As a means of confirming what you are hearing or what other people are hearing else we are back to the Sutcliffe situation where one person proclaims that God has told them something and there is no way of confirming or denying it.

The book ensures that people don't stray too far off the mark.

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Jul 2012 22:48:28 BDT
light says:
Burchell,

You said, " In my case I can say that the Bible says "you shall not murder", but along with that there are a number of other things that I don't agree with but have to accept, such as rules for homosexuals or witches."

The bible was written many years ago, so you have to take into account the culture and time in history that it was written. What were the laws of the land? People do not burn witches anymore because they know that the bible was used to justify killing women who used herbs and practiced healing and maybe women who were outspoken were included in this witch hunt!

You said, " So how do you reconcile "no-one comes to the Father except through the Son [Jesus]". That is a very exclusivist claim - it means that Buddhists, Hindus, Spiritualists, Muslims etc. cannot come before God and thus cannot have equal validity. Buddhists don't even believe in a god!"

I can explain it alright! That idea has been taken out of context to control people. The son, (Christ spirit) is not exclusive for Christians. The Christ spirit or saving spirit is for everyone who has come to an awakening or enlightenment that the way they are living is wrong and hurtful. So in that sense no one can come to the Father who has not recognized the error of their ways. Until they "see" that they are selfish they will remain in darkness and not be able to see the light.

Many other religions believe in god but call them by different names who is to say which one is the right name? The name in which a person calls god doesn't matter, but what they do in the name of god is what matters. Buddhism which is considered a philosophy also have Higher principles which closely resemble Christianity because they are guided under the direction of the Son, (Christ Spirit).

You said, "And we are talking about modern religions... but what about ancient ones such Baal worship which included infant sacrifice? Did that have equal validity?"

There again you have to take into account the time in history in which the God Baal was worshiped. Many cultures made human sacrifice, even the Israelites fell into this practice for a while, which god did say was wrong and they were punished for it by being allowed to fall into to the hands of the enemy.

Christians are hardly recognizable today because they blend in with the crowd of idol worship, sure they say Jesus is god or son of god but they do everything everyone else does.

You said, "You quote James, but how do you know that this is not one of the passages (or even books) that was not mistranslated, added to or deleted from via Constantine or Justinian? Luther thought that James should be removed from the Bible."

Luther wanted to take James out of the bible because it took away from Jesus being the only way to God. It put faith in the hands of the people and made proof of faith as a necessity! Faith without works is dead.

You said, "The more we talk, the more vague and unsatisfying your god is and the more certain I am that my God is supreme. But I am convinced that my God and your god are not the same in any way because mine is powerful and yours is powerless."

That's a scary statement, it reminds me of White supremacy and the Klu Klux Klan.

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Jul 2012 22:57:30 BDT
Light,

I am a Christian and I do know the good things that God wants people to do. But these are the things that the Christian God wants people to do, and that may not be the same for other religions. So the Islamic Fundamentalist suicide bombers somehow think that Allah/God wants them to kill thousands of people including themselves.

I can say that they are not following Yahweh, or Jesus in way shape or form, but I can only say that because I have the Bible to measure their actions against. Without the Bible, there is no means except our consciences to say they are wrong... and clearly their consciences don't say they are wrong, so who is to say who is correct and who is not.

I understand that God/Yahweh does not tell people to kill and rape, but he is not the same in any other religion, as my point about Baal makes clear. For if God were really Baal, then he would have been forbidding the Israelites to worship him! So if he is not Baal, then it is clear that for some people belief in a deity finds killing (and possibly ritualised rape) perfectly acceptable.

I am happy to say that other people's religions are false (most of them would say the same about mine). I am less happy saying that they are automatically going to hell because of the way they worship [him].

It seems that you cannot get away from the idea that there is one single God who is the head of every religion, whereas I think there is one single God who is the head of two (possibly three) religions and that anything else is a false idol.

Your idea of god just does not work. This deity sets up buddhism which says don't worship him. He sets up Judaism which says don't worship anything but Yahweh and all other gods are false. He sets up Hinduism which basically says worship anything and everything. He sets up Islam which proclaims that anyone not of 'the book' should be killed. And so on. This one god of yours is totally confused and is ultimately responsible for huge numbers of deaths by setting religions against one another. Your god is not worthy of being worshipped by anyone....

"You create and worship the god you want to and if that god allows for rape and killing then who is to say that your interpretation is wrong - after all it is your interpretation?" This does not include my God as I did not create him.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  21
Total posts:  165
Initial post:  23 Jun 2012
Latest post:  21 Jul 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions