Faith – A Conflict- free Zone (Page 6)

GeraldtheGnome: Well Christianity is all about worshipping someone that was never born and a god that is made up as well as the myth that there certainly is a Hell and that if anyone sins then anyone who does burns in Hell even though it contradicts the myth that there is an all forgiving god. So in that way I don’t mind Christians getting mocked so long as it’s done fairly. I don’t like a certain word in the clip being used but the way it was used in such a politically incorrect way which was very funny, it’s even funnier watching the responses of black people to it. My tear ducts went dry. I never would resort to using that word though. I can understand them getting offended though, I actually got very offended (like black people have) by the claim that his rhymes were than notorious Big or as many, including me refer to him, notorious B, I, G. If he wasn’t shot dead in a drive by then he’d be my age now. It was very sacrilegious according to me, in fact in most reactions by black people more of them were offended by the claim against the rapper than the racist word. Yes I used to be into hip hop where quite a lot of black People themselves used the word including one group that used that word for the name of a group.

The word god was never around before Christianity was introduced and the Christians in Britain and where Frisians lived still used the Latin name for the god and the Latin word for the god. The word god even when it was first used referred to the Christian god and to any other god. The earliest known to me introduction of the word god and the name God was first after the introduction of Christianity to Britain in 597 AD. When exactly is unknown because there is no way of knowing because there is no way of knowing if the word god and the name God were used before any still available record with the word and the name. It’s most likely that the word and the name God were use before they were written down and etched in stone.

I never would record myself using a racist word and I never have. No one is a mind reader so myself and everyone else would have guessed what your response was going to end up being.

Zanjan: The bane of all religion has been interpretation of the scriptures; far worse is insisting only one interpretation is correct. In the past, the clergy was largely responsible for this mistake; historically, that has proven to be disastrous to faith, which ultimately led to the breakdown of society. Today, add everyone else to the mix and you’ve got chaos.

If there’s a way to prevent that, it has to begin with respect for the soul and the humble admission that our comprehension has limits.

We dive into scriptures with the understanding that the Word of God has many layers of meaning – there’s something for everybody, regardless of their capacity. It’s said that everything superfluous will spill out of a full heart.

There are some things we should keep to ourselves, lest we create more questions than answers.

“How great the multitude of truths which the garment of words can never contain! How vast the number of such verities as no expression can adequately describe, whose significance can never be unfolded, and to which not even the remotest allusions can be made!

How manifold are the truths which must remain unuttered until the appointed time is come! Even as it hath been said: “Not everything that a man knoweth can be disclosed, nor can everything that he can disclose be regarded as timely, nor can every timely utterance be considered as suited to the capacity of those who hear it.” – Baha’u’llah

Zanjan: We live in times where the independent investigation of truth is absolutely critical. The object is to arrive at one’s own understanding, not to adopt someone else’s ideas and perspectives. We can best do that by focusing on similarities rather than differences.

Then one finds that interpretation is not needed – the chance of erroneously perceiving the author’s intent is eliminated.

Interpretation manipulates the scriptures to mean anything one wants it to mean. The result is merely a clutch of beliefs, not understanding. Who has God appointed to interpret His Words? Only His Messengers, His Revelators. Historically, have there been any exceptions?

The only ancient instance we know of is with Moses, Who had a problem with His speech – there’s not enough detail for us to be certain what, exactly, that problem was – it wasn’t what He was saying, it’s that people couldn’t understand what He spoke. Some have thought He had a speech impediment like a stutter.

Consequently, God appointed Aaron to interpret Moses’s Words and communicate that to the people. Being at Moses’s side the whole time, Moses would have heard if there was any error and corrected him. None were reported so he must have done a good job.

Seems to me, if ever there was to be another authorized interpreter, God or the Messenger of God would name him.

Zanjan: That said, there’s another instance of an interpreter; this is a modern rank, going far beyond what humanity has previously experienced – this is an entirely unique authority in the history of mankind.

Baha’u’llah, Prophet-Founder of the Baha’i Faith, appointed, Abbas, His son, as the only Interpreter, naming him Abdu’l-Baha (Servant of Glory). Additionally, He gave him other titles, such as the Master, the Mystery of God, the Center of the Covenant, the Most Great Branch, the Exemplar.

Abdu'l-Baha was not a Prophet; his rank and station was lower than that of Baha’u’llah but he was Baha’u’llah’s successor after His passing. Since no one could emulate Baha’u’llah, we have Abdu’l-Baha, the perfect Exemplar, one whose character and actions we could model ourselves after rather than trying to copy others or arguing which is the better conduct.

Baha’u’llah’s Revelation is a vast ocean, so deep and expansive our minds couldn’t contain it all. Each one of us is like a drop in that ocean. We have questions no one before us thought to ask; we need elaboration on various principles, articles of faith, the spiritual realities, clarity on past scriptures, and the right applications for our time.

Thanks to the gift of Abdu’l-Baha, followers don’t argue over religious text, ours or other scriptures, and never will. Furthermore, there will never be a challenge to the historicity of this faith and never a sect or breakdown in the unity of this religion. We have every conceivable tool to guarantee this.

Comparing this Age to past Ages and its peoples, Baha’u’llah wrote, “This is a Day that will not be followed by Night”.

Zanjan: I digressed there for a bit, Gerald.

Among important matters, yes, names are a big thing with humans - it's a kingdom of its own but we make entirely too much of it and that's distracting. In the heavenly world, we're known by our beings - that is, our characters.

I'll be eternally thrilled when people stop referring to their identity by colour. African Americans don't realize how demeaning it is to call themselves "Black". This is not a description of them or their culture, if one can call it that.

As for addressing the divine by "God", that's pretty much stuck now. We're aware that God has no gender but expresses spiritual accents of both male and female. If He didn't possess those, He couldn't have made them. In this world, we're so poorly focused we're practically blind so names help to orient ourselves.

How would *you* address God if you believed He-She were present?

GeraldtheGnome: You made some grammatical errors on here. Don't you think that you would be better of telling people that there is possibly at least one god around right now rather than telling people that there certainly is a (Medieval) god named God around right now ?

I wouldn't address a Middle Ages god named God because he is made up. If one however was named that and was around in front of me then I would address him since God is a Christian male name. How I would is unknown though, I wouldn't worship any god or goddess that is any religious story of any religion though.

Zanjan: I don't interfere with how people address God - that's none of my business. Mine is to present a role model for spiritual virtues. If it's pleasing then follow it to the Source; if not, continue to do your own thing.

GeraldtheGnome: These days most of those that use English, Dutch, Frisian and Afrikaans are the only people that use the name God for any Adam based main god. Even in the nineteenth century those that were the first of your religion never used the name God. Before your religion had English and the other three translations of your religions books no one of your religion used the name God. In the past Afrikaans only came about due to Dutch settlers and before that the Dutch used the name, at first though Early Dutch was where the name God was never used. English and Frisian users used the name God before that and even none of them used it in in the first parts of The Middle Ages.

No one can address God, even if there is a god of the type that you claim is around somewhere right now, which is not the case, then the name is unknown. So if there is at least one god around somewhere right now then if you, me or anyone else addressed him as God and he was able to hear and speak then he would tell us that God is not his name. There is no source and the source wouldn’t be spelt with a capital. You literally cannot interfere for there is no god named God. You should have used a comma instead of a hyphen. Spiritual values is a belief system and nothing more to that. If there is a god then the name is unknown, there possibly is at least one god or goddess around somewhere right now and it’s also possible that every god and goddess is made up. No one knows and no one will ever know. I more lean to that there is at least possibly a god or goddess around somewhere right now. No one can prove that I’m wrong about that, not even you. You should go with the possibility that there is at least one of them around right now rather than continue on with the false claim that you certainly know what is true.

GeraldtheGnome: I tried to get this on earlier, it was before the repeat of Songs of Praise that was on today. There is a show named Earth's Sacred Wonders episode two, if you can get it then watch it and here it. A part of it reminded me of when I had lunch in a Sikh Temple.

bonzono: "I don't interfere with how people address God - that's none of my business. Mine is to present a role model for spiritual virtues"

It's probably fair to say that you dont really know what a 'spirit' is, much less 'spiritual virtues'.
Here's a tip.

When you're confronted with things you cant understand, it's not god. Worship in thing you've called god because you cant understand it doesnt make you spiritual.

When the world moves on from this current bout of absurd religious nonsenses - after having moved on from a previous set of absurd religious nonsenses, there wont be much left to make us feel compelled to lie to each other about 'spiritual virtues'.

Zajan, I dare you - just say 'not to be an ass', rather than 'present a model for spiritual values'.

That's literally all it is. your religion has ... nothing... to do with it.

Zanjan: Unless one is a Revelator of God, we haven't been given the right to be accusatory - that is, to judge others.

I don't mean receiving a personal impression ie. 'I don't/ do like you'; or making an honest observation, based on facts ie. ' George is a thief - I saw him shoplift that can of tuna'. These statements have to be verified with concrete evidence because one's word isn't good enough to be taken as truth. As a witness, you might have missed something.

I'm talking about judging other's souls to be lesser than one's self. How would you know where your own soul rates on a scale of 1-10? Making a comparison in value can only come from a place of pride + contempt for another. This is evil.

One combats evil by applying a perfect balance of spiritual virtue, for example, Justice and Mercy. The virtuous soul will be mindful but should they get into an awkward position, or be momentarily neglectful, God has been helpful by reminding us to refrain from fault-finding and backbiting. This is an order.

You might recognize that in its old wardrobe: 'Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil'. Some find that rather vague so clarity is required. Despite this, atheists are unable to adhere to that even if they wanted to.

"It's probably fair to say that you dont really know what a 'spirit' is, much less 'spiritual virtues'.

It's not fair when you don't include actual facts. However, life isn't fair and nobody ever said it would be. Better to be just. That's doable. By not backing one's accusation with actual proof, the accuser will only succeed in assigning themself to the outer limits.

Btw, bonzono, I didn't say *I* was the spiritual model of virtues. I'm not the cookie cutter.

Zanjan: Bonzono wrote: "Worship in thing you've called god because you cant understand it doesnt make you spiritual. "

If one is observant, they can easily see that every *living* thing has a spirit. Most of us didn't need God to affirmed this but He has because people confused the spirit of life with the nature of a thing. He clarified that even rocks have spirit; we don't consider them to be living things so this is a deeper view.

Creatures are sorted into 4 ascending realms, called kingdoms: Mineral, Vegetable, Animal, and Man. They exist because each has a distinct spirit of being. There was a time when humans didn't know that man wasn't an animal. By comparison, Man is a noble spirit because he has a soul. Therefore, he's always spiritual - that is, he must always worship something.

Worship is adoration; sometimes, it's genuine love. Being humans, our attractions can go astray; we can worship material objects or put certain humans on a pedestal. God informed us that those kinds of loves will let us down in the end because the object of our affections isn't perfect.

We'll never understand total perfection be we can certainly appreciate relative perfection. Some find that beautiful, some are repulsed by it.

bonzono: "If one is observant, they can easily see that every *living* thing has a spirit."

Wrong, if one is intellectually honest, one realises that saying things like 'my personal subjective and unprovable assertions constitute a defensible argument' - is fraudulent.

If you disagree, great, show your claim has more substance to it than your simple say-so

"Creatures are sorted into 4 ascending realms, called kingdoms: Mineral, Vegetable, Animal, and Man. "
wrong again,
the kingdoms are 'animal, plant, fungus, prokaryotes and eukaryotes'.

Contrary to fabricated and indefensible religious dogma, it's proven that humans are in fact, animals - specifically mammals. If you disagree, please be sure to raise the fact with your doctor who is certainly assuming you understand he or she considers you a mammal.

"Worship is adoration; sometimes, it's genuine love."
if you say so, then again, there's excellent reason to consider that christians have a very, very warped understanding of what 'love' is - they seem ager to dole out the stuff like it's candy among peadophiles, rapists and law-abiding people alike.

Around 80% of what you wrote in your last post is provably wrong. the other 20% is entirely subjective and also entirely suspect.

recommend you find out the basic aspects of science before you start trying to talk about them - at the very least, caveat your comments with 'this is totally refuted by acutal science and is comprised by my unfounded and contradictory religious dogma only'

Zanjan: "If you disagree, great, show your claim has more substance to it than your simple say-so "

You might want to read the topic title again. If you came here for a duel, you'll be greatly disappointed. We share our thoughts here; we're not staking a personal claim. We might argue technical logic or dictionary definitions but it's not wise to be insistent.

Furthermore, if one appears to be unable to grasp certain elements of reality, there would be no foundation for conversation at a deeper level. Any proof supplied would just bounce off them because they're not well enough prepared. In that case, the best anyone can do is clarify their previous thoughts.

For example: I was speaking of the kingdoms of creation, not scientific classifications of physical bodies. If we were to stick to scientific classification, the distinction between animals and humans is that the human brain isn't a mammalian brain. It's a far more advanced structure.

Thank you for the suggestion but my doctor isn't a veterinarian.

I'm not sure why you're picking out only Christians to fault. The reasons you give apply to atheists of every stripe. Everyone has their own idea of what love is; they usually adjust their perspective as they get older, having learned there are different kinds of love. Only one of them is unbounded and eternal.

Look into the prison system - check the stats on the number of practicing religious inmates. Then check the stats of the number who went into prison as non-religious but became religious while inside.

bonzono: "You might want to read the topic title again. If you came here for a duel, you'll be greatly disappointed. We share our thoughts here; we're not staking a personal claim. We might argue technical logic or dictionary definitions but it's not wise to be insistent.
"

Well, zanjan , it doesn matter where we go, even if you pretend you create yourself a fake 'safe space' = that you cant show your god to be anything beyond a mythological fantasy will ALWAYS be the case.

creating a fake safe space just gives you yet another excuse to avoid sddressing the fact you're fully aware exactly how mythological your absurd bronzeage dogma really is.


do you really think we expect an intelligent answer from religious people on this question? afterr thousands and thousands of years of religious people being completely unable to answer it intelligently?
i do hope not.

bonzono: of course the problems you seem to have are not limited to your strange way of rationalising the existence of a being you've simply imagined, but also your penchant for distributing simply wrong information - the five kindoms of life you tried to write about above, is simply utterly wrong.

That you imagine that you can observe a tree , imagine up a god in your mind for the creator of said tree, then observe said tree again and claim 'ahah, my newly made up god is proven true' - is so uttery beyond laughable it's just downright tragic.

The crimes that you and people like you distribute and pretend are innocently based in a ridiculous mythology are beyond reproach. I'm all for you pretending whatever you want is real, but it's just repulsive how you think your very, very broken reasoning - AND misinformation - is intelligent.

it's not. Clean up your act.

bonzono: "Thank you for the suggestion but my doctor isn't a veterinarian."

You honestly think your doctor does not consider you an animal?

hehe... you're in for a nasty shock. i dare you to ask them - of course, you wont... because you know what the answer will be and you;re terrified of it.. The good news is that regardless of how you want your doctor to answer, they actually cant be qualified to be a doctor,much less open a practice, unless they DO consider you an animal.

The other fun part is if they DONT consider you to be an animal, they're contradicting all modern medical scieince, and thererfore not practiciing legal medicine, and should be reported.

It's quite a little bind the ignorant creationists find themselves in, every time they think they want medical advice- they have to ask for help from someone they know regards them as an evolved member of the great apes family. It's even funnier watching these people actively take medicaation which was also constructed on the basis of understanding that human physiology is in fact, animal.

Oops.


(but dont worry, you'll ignore all that, pretend it's not true, continue to take advice and medication from a bunch of people you know treat you on the basis of you actually being an animal - it's not as if modern religious people respect fact, reason, integrity, honesty or sanity).

GeraldtheGnome: To Zanjan. That one loves that argument, predictably I knew that Bonzono was going to bring that up. Once again nothing has shown that anyone has overlooked or does not know about in regards to the doctor theory. Here’s some things that Bonzono doesn’t know about, I have went out with a doctor and another one I went out with was a medical student who was studying to be a doctor. Because none of us are mind readers about every qualified doctor of any kind that Bonzono loves to go on about then there is no way that any of us know if they treat everyone as an animal or not. Who really is going to waste time during their time with a doctor asking if he or she treats all humans as animals ?

Just because I don’t agree with you or Bonzono and because I don’t agree with some other people about certain things does not give myself or you (even though I’m not accusing you of it) or anyone to be rude to anyone. On this site Bonzono and some other people have been rude to both of us and some have been unfair to us in other ways. Sure sometimes it has happened to either of us. Of course we should not be rude or unfair in anyone to each other, nor should we or anyone else do that to Bonzono. Everyone should be fair to all on religious forums.

Zanjan: Bonzono, you're free to start your own topic where you can continue to be accusatory, spewing vitriol at all the corners of society you don't like. We're not your personal punching bags or your therapists so, please respectfully follow the house rules or say goodbye.

Zanjan: Gerald, I think everyone is capable of improving their lifestyle, their language, their manners and respect. In a discussion, the proper decorum can only be preserved when personalities are kept out of the conversation. It's much more productive to focus only on the subject.

The nice thing about hosting a topic is the host can pass around the plate to the guests but if any guest throws the food in anyone's face, the host can remove that individual from the premises. No one should have to endure uncivilized behavior from an adult.

Zanjan: Faith without conflict.

We've been experiencing very thick wildfire smoke here. There's no wind and no rain so the burnt particulates and toxic fumes have settled over us. The heat is horrid and we're on water rations because the drought is severe, causing crop failures.

We used to be able to see the sun, now it's gloomy. It's summer, I can't open any doors or windows and can't leave the house even for a few minutes. As someone once said, I'm certain the sky is falling; but, I have faith there's another sky behind it.

Zanjan: Bonzono, I respect freedom of speech, not hate speech, slander or any other kind of abuse.

Freedom is a privilege, not a right. It belongs to those who obey the rules. Whoever disrespects that ruins freedom for everybody else. Then a new law comes down where nobody has that privilege anymore. You won't be taking us down that road. From hereon, anything you post in this topic will be deleted.

Zanjan: This brings us to Jesus's guidance to "turn the other cheek". That's not advice to ignore injustice. It's not advice to taunt your attacker into striking you again, nor is it advice to be brave and suck it up, princess. Jesus wasn't a cowboy.

When you turn your cheek, you can only look at your attacker through one eye. Think about that.