Good and Evil - Do they exist ?

Pocari Sweat

Why label people with a religious and simplistic bipolar view of being good or evil ?

In human terms we are born and live life and die.

We do things that often helps or upsets others, but religion is too often brought into bias our thinking into describing people as being good or evil.

Do we live a life governed by our sensitive psychological minds and make decisions based on our state of mind that govern our actions.. or..

Are we more or less mindless zombies, governed by gods and demons who act on our behalf to make us do evil or good things in life ?

Is religion a universally autistic and bipolar type of thinking which does not really consider what other people are actually thinking and feeling and puts people into simplistic categories of good or evil because of their actions and because demons and gods are using them like puppets ?



In a similar and dangerous simplistic view, does the bible instill racism into people because it uses very basic black and white language, with its good and evil stereotyping applied to anything that is actually more complex.

Are we the same idiots we were 2000 years ago, or are we going to get rid of the church in the next 100 years, because of its hypocracy and lies ?

pbsuxok1znja4r

Pocari Sweat wrote:

Why label people with a religious and simplistic bipolar view of being good or evil ?

You're right in asking why people should ever be "labelled" as good or evil. No-one should. However, a person's actions can be. A person can be defined by their actions and hence you could know of a person whether their actions were, in general, more often good than bad or alternatively more often bad than good. To say someone is good or evil is like a loose approximation of a quantity and quality assignable to their each of their actions. Bottom line, it's a shaky description to make.

I must object to your use of the word "religious" in close conjunction with "simplistic bipolar". Here you are subtley suggesting all things religous to be simplistic and bipolar in their perspective. You would be wrong to do so.

wrote:

In human terms we are born and live life and die.

True, and in human terms we also do an astronomical number of things in between birth and death.

wrote:

We do things that often helps or upsets others, but religion is too often brought into bias our thinking into describing people as being good or evil.

First of all, it's not fact that religion is "too often" brought into people's thinking. That's your opinion. Secondly, the thing about (most) religion(s) is that it's pretty all-pervasive when it comes to people's actions.
In my experience it is in fact people who dislike thinking in religious terms / oppose organised religion who are quickest to use terms like good or evil.

wrote:

Do we live a life governed by our sensitive psychological minds and make decisions based on our state of mind that govern our actions.. or..

Yes, I believe. Our choices are our own and are a product of our psyche, I suppose. You know; somethings you could loosely call intellect, id, ego, superego, all of that psychological lark. With conscience.

wrote:

Are we more or less mindless zombies, governed by gods and demons who act on our behalf to make us do evil or good things in life ?

I don't think there is any evidence to suggest that... Why do you use the terms good and evil in association with this theory? Cannot we make entirely our own decisions alongside and in conjuction with the existence of an objective good or evil? Or have you already made up your mind about that?

wrote:

Is religion a universally autistic and bipolar type of thinking which does not really consider what other people are actually thinking and feeling and puts people into simplistic categories of good or evil because of their actions and because demons and gods are using them like puppets ?

Religion (and I hate to use such a general term so I'll take christianity as a less ambiguous example), is nothing of the sort and does nothing of the sort. I hope you don't actually suppose this is true, still less hope to suggest to others that it is true by putting forth such a question as if it was a likelyhood.
If someone gives you advice, but you are still free to heed or not to heed that advice, are you being used as a puppet? Hardly.

wrote:

If god said go forth and multiply and take the fruits of the earth and farm the beasts of the land, is that why we feck our planet up and overpopulate it and don't give much thought to other animals.

I doubt it, considering God supposedly "said" a myriad of other things that we don't do. We feck the planet because we don't care not to. It's ludicrous to suggest that we do this one bad thing because "God said" to, yet ignore the fact we don't do damn near everything else he "said".

wrote:

In a similar and dangerous simplistic view, does the bible instill racism into people because it uses very basic black and white language, with its good and evil stereotyping applied to anything that is actually more complex.

The bible instills in people mostly what they wanted it to when they went to read it in the first place. People can and do, whether consciously or unconsciously, interpret it in widely varying ways to serve their own widely varying ends and intentions. If anyone is using black and white language or failing to acknowledge the true complexity of matters, it is you.

wrote:

Are we the same idiots we were 2000 years ago, or are we going to get rid of the church in the next 100 years, because of its hypocracy and lies ?

It is a grave mistake for you or anyone else to suppose that people were idiots 2,000 years ago. Perhaps even idiotic, if you can appreciate the irony of that.
Well, you show your true colours here at last, I see. I also get the general impression that you are using questions as a means to suggest things as somehow likely or true. What church are you even talking about, by the way? And what's wrong with hypocrisy and lies? Anyone would swear you thought they were objectively bad things that you felt everyone ought to naturally oppose.

Pocari Sweat

You are a bit optimistic about religion, I think.

In my opinion, it is hypocritical by its very nature and attracts weavers of waffle and lies.

Its very foundation is built on lies, and every person walking out of a church in my experience are willing to tell lies at a drop of a hat.

Idiots back then and idiots now.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

*wide eyed stare*

such a man...

Dirk Gently

Bad decisions, manipulative behavior, selfishness, a disregard for others - yes

Evil – no

Right decisions and wrong decisions, that’s it, no supernatural forces at work.

Pocari Sweat

Clown bag, straight talking, level headed, no nonsense.

Mordeth, ooh, wide eyed stare, ?? Not much sense there.

Laplandman

That is very clever Pocari, Although (once again)the quality of your contribution is less than mint. All you have done is drop a bag full of droll hypotheticals on some giant imaginary religous foot. Maybe if you try engaging with the actual stuff in the world you'll do better than with your pointless controversialisms - 'bipolar', 'autistic' - great stuff Pocari.

UU

That's all very interesting but one can't really blame religion, per se, but rather the actions of people. If there wasn't any religion, people would still find a way of labelling. Anyway, religion itself isn't to blame for all these things you describe but people!

People started the Jihad (The Crusades), people started the Reformation, people burned "witches", gays, pagans, Protestants, Jews, Moors and half a dozen others at the stake. People caused the Israel-Palestine conflict as well as the Troubles of Northern Ireland. People caused the Greenhouse Effect, the thinning of the ozone layer and the dumping of toxic wastes and nuclear chemicals.

Religion is created by people. Faith has always been in us but it changes shape and form over time. People use their religion as a weapon to provoke hatred and discrimination like many of the "Bible Bashers" in America. People also interpret their religion in ways to suit themselves and go to extremes to literaly follow the scripture even if it means being wicked and contradicting themselves. Atheists are just as capable of lying as a Jew or a Hindu is. Religion can be useful to give a sense of hope but also can be a lethal thing when it spirals out of hand. These are the questions of today which need to be asked. If you don't know the truth, how can you know where love is?

And as quoted in my signature "Can you practise what you preach and would you turn the other cheek?".

Pocari Sweat

I agree mostly with your sentiments UU, although I don't want to get personal with laplandman as he has done with me and to avoid any bitterness, I was simply stating earlier that I don't generally have real discernment with people themselves, it is more to do with what they claim or say and more so in the overall context of religion and the extreme parts of its hypocrasies in order to discuss and debate issues.

I know there is no need to get personal, I am speaking generally about the overall perspectives of outdated beliefs.

Take my apologies, but all I ask is debate the issues, answer the questions and I won't go off on a rant.

BrianCalgary

Pocari Sweat wrote:

In my opinion, it is hypocritical by its very nature and attracts weavers of waffle and lies..

Pocari, first time on this board and you have labelled every Christian leader a liar? Not to mention every leader. Choose your words carefully my friend. That is quite a claim, please be prepared to back it up or be quiet and listen.

Pocari Sweat wrote:

Its very foundation is built on lies, and every person walking out of a church in my experience are willing to tell lies at a drop of a hat..

We invite you to begin your list of lies. And to be prepared to be answered intelligently and to give intelligent responses.

Pocari Sweat wrote:

Idiots back then and idiots now.

Again with the insults.

Pocari Sweat

No need for personalities now, try to have a little christian spirit or abide by the best of other religious teachings.

Even though I am not myself religious, I am not setting out to arbitrarily belittle other users on this thread. I will only comment on some of the pointless remarks made by some users who are without any particular debate (on the rarer occasion), and I will not apply "religious sanctimony" or personality based insults to any users on this thread.

In response to Brian and keeping to the point of my original post, I stated that "we do things that often helps or upsets others, but religion is too often brought into bias our thinking into describing people as being good or evil".

Now it is obvious to say that to offer a point of discussion which can be viewed as agreeable to some and objectionable to others is par for the course in these forums, but for an individual to take issue with general statements as personal or get themselves upset, is still not the fault of the original post when no personalities from the outset have been highlighted.

So being true to my original post, it does seem that when religion is involved, sentiments often become more focussed on the good / evil scenario rather than being more objective and the upset caused is more to do with other users dogmatic reaction against those who question religious thinking as if they are religious themselves and accountable to a given god.

Often people forget we have physical organs including brains and assign our thinking elsewhwere to the organ that pumps our blood and disregard the description of the brain's workings in real terms and any study done on the mind as a "psychological lark" and instead fall back on religion to do its work for it.

The main point that was put in my original post, was also pertinent because it describes the christian god as telling man to go forth and multiply and take the fruits of the earth and farm the animals for their use, which I said was the dangerous thinking set out in the bible, now outdated in our modern society, because we cannot ust go and wreck the world by using and abusing it, so obvious nowadays but not properly thought through when scribes back in old times were putting the bible together.

I don't think they got the bible anywhere near right in describing what a god should be. He would not be so short sighted and would not be so hypocritical in the way he has been described more often in genesis.

A genuinely decent god, if he wanted his own words to be put into a bible would do a better job and not allow it to be viewed in such disparaging terms as it is today. He wouldn't be a god who is viewed both to take a part in human events when he wants to periodically in our history and then stand back to allow the widescale torture and genocide of the jews in nazi germany for example as if being an absent landlord, but then be described as being able to strike down those who dare question his word.

Again I don't think it is his words, I think the organising of religion in many parts of the world around 1500 years ago, put together not exactly accurate things about the world, the sun rotating around the earth and adam and eve.

I simply think they got it so wrong. And it is not unfair to think the fear, pain and torture so prevalent in the historic workings of organised religion such as the spanish inquisition, burning of witches etc, were, good/evil based autistic and bipolar madness from a small number of power mad and hypocritical abusers of the common man.

pbsuxok1znja4r

Pocari Sweat wrote:

No need for personalities now, try to have a little christian spirit or abide by the best of other religious teachings.

As you yourself would do well to do, or perhaps not, given that you are of the opinion that:

wrote:

it is hypocritical by its very nature and attracts weavers of waffle and lies..

wrote:

Even though I am not myself religious, I am not setting out to arbitrarily belittle other users on this thread.

This is quite beside the point, but since you yourself have brought it up I feel I should add that this is about the only thing you have accomplished in the thread so far. Whether you "set out to" or not.

I will only comment on some of the pointless remarks made by some users

It would make for far more worthwhile discussion if instead you commented on the pointed remarks made by other users.

wrote:

In response to Brian and keeping to the point of my original post, I stated that "we do things that often helps or upsets others, but religion is too often brought into bias our thinking into describing people as being good or evil".

Again I will reply to this opinion in the same way I did when you first stated it. For people who are subscribers to any religious school of thought, it is only natural that "religion" should be brought in. Whether it is purely in order to "bias people's thinking" I can't say, but I know that if it is, then so is your attempt to debunk religious thought an effort to bias thinking.

wrote:

Now it is obvious to say that to offer a point of discussion which can be viewed as agreeable to some and objectionable to others is par for the course in these forums, but for an individual to take issue with general statements as personal or get themselves upset, is still not the fault of the original post when no personalities from the outset have been highlighted.

Em, okay, I personally have no issue with anything you've said so far, but you should be aware that being an

wrote:

idiot

is something of a personality trait and you called everyone who followed any religion, this:

wrote:

Idiots back then and idiots now.

Please don't even try to pretend that isn't a personal insult. Like I said, I personally take no issue what you've said, but I thought I should make you aware to the fact that you've almost certainly offended others with frankly crass comments.

wrote:

So being true to my original post, it does seem that when religion is involved, sentiments often become more focussed on the good / evil scenario rather than being more objective and the upset caused is more to do with other users dogmatic reaction against those who question religious thinking as if they are religious themselves and accountable to a given god.

Quite to the contrary, for if anything, debunking the idea of good/evil is less "objective", as you say. So you are in fact dead wrong in what you say here. (Wrong as in "incorrect" and "untrue" in case you're in any doubt over my using that word). Your argument seems to be that we should instead think in terms of what would or would not offend/upset people. But people differ and are inherently and inescapably subjective. You could then only describe any action as desirable or undesirable (or, if you like; good or bad) as it applies to any one person.
How you see that as more objective is beyond me. Can you explain your thinking further on that issue?

wrote:

the upset caused is more to do with other users dogmatic reaction against those who question religious thinking

To be honest, so far in what you've said, you haven't even begun to approach questioning religious thinking. It is in fact your "thinking" that is questionable, if you really think the upset is caused solely by "dogmatic reaction".

wrote:

Often people forget we have physical organs including brains and assign our thinking elsewhwere to the organ that pumps our blood and disregard the description of the brain's workings in real terms and any study done on the mind as a "psychological lark" and instead fall back on religion to do its work for it.

"Fall back on religion", eh? How so?

You should be aware that I only used the term "lark" as a quick, convenient and light-hearted means to denote an assortment of psychological ideas and theories. I didn't mean to detract from their value in any way. You seem confused, also; You are aware, I hope, that there are no actual "phsyical" (as you say) parts of the brain that you could call id, ego, et al?

wrote:

The main point that was put in my original post, was also pertinent because it describes the christian god as telling man to go forth and multiply and take the fruits of the earth and farm the animals for their use, which I said was the dangerous thinking set out in the bible, now outdated in our modern society, because we cannot ust go and wreck the world by using and abusing it,

Again, I'll have to stop you right there, Ted. In what possible way does the command "go forth, multiply, take the fruits of the earth and farm the animals" equate with "wreck the world by using it and abusing it" ?

wrote:

so obvious nowadays but not properly thought through when scribes back in old times were putting the bible together.

Yes, "obviously", back in the "old times" they mustn't have thought that one through, I guess.

wrote:

I don't think they got the bible anywhere near right

Right? Who is to say what "right" for the bible is? That's an awfully extreme, perhaps even "polarized" term for you to be using, there.

wrote:

in describing what a god should be. He would not be so short sighted and would not be so hypocritical in the way he has been described more often in genesis.

I ask you again, what's wrong with short-sightedness and hypocrisy? You seem to have some very high notions of what you think this "God" should be. Where did you get those ideas?

wrote:

A genuinely decent god,

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Stop right there. Decent? Meaning what? Are you saying rather that this "God" fellow is indecent? Because that would be a somewhat "bipolar" system of describing anything, would it not?
Are we talking about kind of person that you personally would find to be "decent", or the kind that, say for example, German Nazis would have thought "decent"?

wrote:

if he wanted his own words to be put into a bible would do a better job and not allow it to be viewed in such disparaging terms as it is today. He wouldn't be a god who is viewed both to take a part in human events when he wants to periodically in our history and then stand back to allow the widescale torture and genocide of the jews in nazi germany for example as if being an absent landlord, but then be described as being able to strike down those who dare question his word.

If he even began to do any of the things you've just mentioned, then before you know it there'd be no such thing as free will. It's funny how those who are in the extremities of being both for or against christianity like to interpret the bible so literally.

wrote:

Again I don't think it is his words, I think the organising of religion in many parts of the world around 1500 years ago, put together not exactly accurate things about the world, the sun rotating around the earth and adam and eve.

Employing a bit of associative guilt here, eh? It's very telling; the way you pair up the idea of Adam & Eve with the false theory of Earth being the centre of the universe/solar system. Well, that's your opinion, which you have every right to. Let me know when you've got evidence to back it up.

wrote:

I simply think they got it so wrong. And it is not unfair to think the fear, pain and torture so prevalent in the historic workings of organised religion such as the spanish inquisition, burning of witches etc, were, good/evil based autistic and bipolar madness from a small number of power mad and hypocritical abusers of the common man.

How sensational. But yes, I agree, if all those bad things that happened were merely down to "bipolar madness" then it would certainly be, as you say, "unfair".
By the way, on what exactly do you base this definition of yours of "fair/"unfair"? Aren't these just safer euphemisms for you to use for the words "good" and "evil"? Here you are, caught using bipolar terms yourself, yet again. I can only think that hypocritical of you, after you discouraging all forms of "bipolar" thought earlier in your post/s. Can you explain yourself further in this regard?

staple

If somebody commits a crime, the legal system does not say ‘your brain state at the time you murdered him was such that you believed it was right to do therefore you are innocent.” Similarly, an action can be judged immoral, even if a person thought it was okay for them to do it, and even if they still think what they did was okay. Yes people have complex psychological operations but that does not absolve them of free will or guilt.

The OP description of polarization of good and evil in Christian ethics does not sound familiar to me. I’m vaguely aware of various heresies about forces of good and evil like the Manichean and Albigensian, but Christianity holds that we are created in God’s image, stained with original sin, and given free will: that is more complex than an angels and demons hypothesis.

I think beneath the original post is a suggestion of relativism, the reluctance to say anything is bad, wicked or evil; everyone is free to do what they want. Christians have a fairly clear idea of what is right and wrong, or good and evil. Through the Bible and tradition and our own common sense, God has told us that some things are evil. If you don’t believe that God exists or the Bible is His word, then you’re not going to agree with those Christian beliefs. It’s not surprising that you reach a different conclusion if you start with different assumptions. On a Christianity forum, however, it is most conducive to useful discussion if you start with Christian assumptions.

Christians should apply the spirit of the law to their time and place, not the letter. However, when Christians find themselves in a laissez-faire culture that does not mean they should abandon those moral beliefs not shared by the majority of society.

This is where Christianity parts from the classic assumption of liberalism: as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else, it’s okay. I think that idea is the dominant morality of Britain today and, it appears from boards.ie, is shared by many in Ireland (and France and US for all I know). An action may be immoral even if it happens among consenting adults. There is a divine moral law that applies to all, even those who don’t believe. So this is why Christians annoy liberals by judging things they should not judge: even if does not harm me directly, I don’t want bad (or, to be provocative ‘evil’) things to be done.

As another poster has said, it is wrong to judge a person. Only God can judge people. However, we can judge an action to be immoral. Having said that, you might be right, and sometimes religious people cross the line from saying ‘he commits lots of evil actions’ to ‘he is evil’. Religious people are imperfect, and so is everyone else.

robindch

> An action may be immoral even if it happens among consenting adults.

Sounds like we're back to the question again of what "morality" is, and no nearer an answer than before.

I'd be interested to hear if any religious person can define it more convincingly than something like "I believe that an action is moral if I believe that it's approved of by the god or gods that I believe exist".

Any takers?

staple

robindch wrote:

I'd be interested to hear if any religious person can define it more convincingly than something like "I believe that an action is moral if I believe that it's approved of by the god or gods that I believe exist".

I'm not a moral philosopher, so I'm afraid I can't oblige.

I'm not sure I even understand what you're looking for. Are you looking for a definition of morality that does not refer to God? Doesn't it seem likely that Christians are going to find it difficult (possibly unneccessary and even undesirable) to describe morality in that way?

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote:

I'd be interested to hear if any religious person can define it more convincingly than something like "I believe that an action is moral if I believe that it's approved of by the god or gods that I believe exist".

Any takers?

As you are well aware every Christian should be modelling their morality on that exemplified by Jesus Christ. That morality is communicated in the pages of the Bible.

We are also aware that a Muslim will base his/her morality based on the words contained within the Q'uran.

A Jew on the Torah.

It's comforting to know where people are coming from on that morality and that they are basing it on the decree of a creator and recognising that God knows better than they.

The more appropriate question is: where do the atheists get their basis of morality from?

Pocari Sweat

Atheists are similar to followers of a god in that dogmatic assumptions are made to be outright in an uncertain belief. Even the more open minded agnostic middle ground can have a dogmatic approach in the idea a god may or may not exist by dismissing the simpler arguments as tommy scouser has done when appearing to jump from point to point without clear debate.

It has been so often demonstrated in the past history of human events that religious thinking has hi-jacked what often turned out to be a lack of understanding about something or just mental problems people have had in the past.

Take Joan of Arc for example. Viewed nowadays as a person who suffered from fairly basic psychological symptons, possibly brought on by disease or diet causing her to hallucinate.

The religious authorities took these medical symptoms to be conclusive evidence that she had visitations from god yet she was later burned at the stake by the same authorities, depicting her as a witch.

So I yet again I would have to confirm that religious history is steeped so often in bipolar and hardened thinking of the good/evil sort in going about its business.

Rather than follow the hardened thinking of christianity in most of its thinking over 2000 years until darwin with concluding that adam and eve were our original ancestors, and close relations to christians such as Jehova Witnesses, I would more likely tend to follow a more studied and educated approach of modern times.

Take Richard Attenborough. By no means is he to be dismissed as a lightweight in his field of study, yet he contends for the first time in a recent programme about man's contribution to climate change and pollution that it has effectively been the due to the origins of religious thinking from genesis where god says go forth and multiply and take the fruits of the earth which has led man to ravage the planet with a disregard to his surroundings without confronting the message of the bible earlier and takings steps to question this ideology and change things for the better.

He took this stance for the very first time as a break from a lifetime's work in keeping religion separate to his studies of life on earth, after he could no longer hold his silence as his grandchildren may face an uncertain future if we carry on with inneffective ideologies that may ultimately harm the earth.

In a recent pamphlet that a pair of Jehova's Witnesses gave me recently, it pointed out all too often in what their printed message was, that regardless of mans indescretions, he could ultimately be saved and be brought to paradise, disregarding the lesser outcomes of the planet in which man has to live.

It all adds up too clearly to me now and in the past, that religion offers views that are antiquated, destructive and cause their believers to become hardened in their thinking to the point where they are unable to effectively debate matters without prosectuting any of those that they feel choose to question the teachings of the bible.

MeditationMom

Hello Fellow Fools

Sounds like we're back to the question again of what "morality" is,

I listened to a great discourse on morality a while back and would like to add it to this discussion. It said that there are moral people and immoral people. Immoral people in general have far more fun. More drinking, eating, loving, doing whatever they want. This is somewhat annoying to the moral people, and some of them will change sides, calling it freedom. Some immoral people also will switch sides as they start suffering from their addictions. But both sides are wrong. We need to go beyond both - moral and immoral - to find peace, true love, God. In other words we need to go beyond good/bad, in other words, judgemental, thinking.

As Brian says, Jesus is a great example and Christians are very grateful to him, admire and adore him. He said in many situations, and in many circumstance not to judge and to take a good look at ourselves first.

Most judgements, and most evil, is rooted in fear or greed, when you take a closer look. Religions warn us against these traits in ourselves as they lead away, instead of towards the kingdom of heaven and "that which is the highest, eternal and infinite in us" that we call God, or as Christians - "our Father", our parent, who takes care of us.

Pocari Sweat, reading your words, I sence the tremendous frustration you feel with the hypocrisy of many moral or religious people. I think anyone on this panel would agree with you that that exists and has turned many people away from not just the Church, but even just a decent life or attitude of kindness towards their fellow man.

The more appropriate question is: where do the atheists get their basis of morality from?

I find this a very interesting question. I have heard it said that there is noone more attached to the idea of God than an Atheist, spending their whole life trying to prove there is no God. It often is nothing but a great disappointment with the God they had imagined or been told about. But, yes, God or no God, Pocari Sweat, who would be a person greater, kinder, or wiser than you, who you could have, or do have, for your inspiration?

I wonder in what way Jesus does not qualify for you. He fought against the Church of his day, he preached against judgement and racism, he taught kindness, he taught us to find God in the Kingdom within rather than in a church? Sounds like you could be pretty good friends with him. Don't worry about God for now, but how about Jesus?

When Jesus talked about God as his Father he was talking about an inner reality for him, not some big powerful guy outside of him up in the sky, but something far bigger than himself, something very real and true, true enough to die for. Maybe worth checking out?;) )

Scofflaw

MeditationMom wrote:

I listened to a great discourse on morality a while back and would like to add it to this discussion. It said that there are moral people and immoral people. Immoral people in general have far more fun. More drinking, eating, loving, doing whatever they want. This is somewhat annoying to the moral people, and some of them will change sides, calling it freedom. Some immoral people also will switch sides as they start suffering from their addictions.

With respect, "drinking, eating, loving" are not of themselves immoral. Even taken to excess, gluttony is not immoral, although drinking may be. Addiction also is not immoral. Immorality is only found in the impact on others.

MeditationMom wrote:

I find this a very interesting question. I have heard it said that there is noone more attached to the idea of God than an Atheist, spending their whole life trying to prove there is no God. It often is nothing but a great disappointment with the God they had imagined or been told about.

Not always. I don't accept God for a variety of reasons, but I do not trouble myself very much with whether he exists - although I do think it unlikely. The attempt to prove that there is no God characterises the younger atheist, as attempting the impossible so often does.

MeditationMom wrote:

I wonder in what way Jesus does not qualify for you. He fought against the Church of his day, he preached against judgement and racism, he taught kindness, he taught us to find God in the Kingdom within rather than in a church? Sounds like you could be pretty good friends with him. Don't worry about God for now, but how about Jesus?

I have a lot of admiration for the man, if he existed. I'm uncertain why you think that would, or should, spill over into worship. I have a lot of admiration for my own parents (who undoubtedly created me!), but I don't think I've ever worshipped them as such (discounting propitiatory activities, obviously).


cordially,
Scofflaw

MeditationMom

Immorality is only found in the impact on others.

I am not sure you are right about this. Of course I was talking about eating, drinking, loving (in order not to use the f-word), to the degree that it would affect others negatively. But even so - morality or immorality appears to be a set of rules by society or religious organizations, often later outdated, and doesn't always follow the rule "as long as it doesn't hurt others." I am sure the church considered it moral to burn the "witches".

Is it immoral for a policeman or soldier to kill someone who is about to do harm to someone else. In the days of Genghis Khan it was considered moral to kill at least as many people as one sired children and more for extra virtue.

The attempt to prove that there is no God characterises the younger atheist, as attempting the impossible so often does.

Point taken.

I have a lot of admiration for the man, if he existed. I'm uncertain why you think that would, or should, spill over into worship.

How can I explain to you about worship?- Have you ever worshipped a woman? Many men haven't. Many just love, admire, respect etc.
Worship is a total surrender to the beauty of a woman who loves you, or in religion to the inner beauty and love of a Buddha or a Christ. You allow yourself to be overcome by it and it is very satisfying. It is the way to ecstasty. And it is a choice, not something you "have to do" to be spiritual, devoted or prove anything. Just like you can have sex without orgasm you can have religion without worship or devotion. If you are happy with admiration of someone who may or may not have existed, that's fine.

Scofflaw

MeditationMom wrote:

Morality or immorality appears to be a set of rules by society or religious organizations, often later outdated, and doesn't always follow the rule "as long as it doesn't hurt others." I am sure the church considered it moral to burn the "witches".

I'm actually not sure that it was considered "moral" in the modern sense - necessary, I think.

I wasn't really making a statement about other people's morality, or about "systems of morality", religious or otherwise...it's just a personal point of view, but the one I judge the world by.

MeditationMom wrote:

Is it immoral for a policeman or soldier to kill someone who is about to do harm to someone else.

Depends on the degree of harm, and the other options available. Clearly, restraint is better than killing. In uncertainty, one might have to kill, and accept that one committed one immoral act in order to prevent another. That's part of the job.

MeditationMom wrote:

In the days of Genghis Khan it was considered moral to kill at least as many people as one sired children and more for extra virtue.

Ah, the good old days.

MeditationMom wrote:

How can I explain to you about worship?- Have you ever worshipped a woman?

Yes, and more than once. However, while it is satisfying to worship, it is also meaningless, except for the satisfaction. It improves nothing, and changes nothing, although it feels as though it improves everything, and changes everything. It is, in the end, as selfish an act as taking heroin, and about as useful.

cordially,
Scofflaw

MeditationMom

Yes, and more than once. However, while it is satisfying to worship, it is also meaningless, except for the satisfaction. It improves nothing, and changes nothing, although it feels as though it improves everything, and changes everything. It is, in the end, as selfish an act as taking heroin, and about as useful.

You do understand worship. Nice description.

But in religion it is not about pleasure or satisfaction of the body. But, as you say, it is equally meaningless, and does not change anything. And it is selfish and useless. It also goes against the body, like heroin. Endless meditation, sitting on the floor, no excercise, celibacy-if you get to that point, bland, vitaminless diets, and in the worst case cenario - the wrath of your fellow man hanging you on a cross.

Then why do we worship? - women, heroin, gods, cars, celebrities and soccor stars, Jesus, Buddha - whatever pulls or insprites us? Is it not our longing for re-union with something qualitative we do not know or understand, many people call God? You can also call it infinite Love, Peace, Truth, that seem to have been embodied by peole like Jesus or Buddha.

Pocari Sweat

Meditation Mom, I don't want to be judgemental, but I have a good idea from what you have posted recently, you are not a product of the general hardened thinking that I often see in religous types, and I think you provide hope for me there in looking at the better side of religion.

Further more, unless I have said something in previous posts that could be disparaging against Jesus, (I hope/don't think I have) I certainly would not attempt to debate that this chap was in any way related to the organised and darker side of religion.

Out of all the religious stuff and prophets I have read about, weighed up and considered, I have always thought this fellow, whether he is any relation of a god, was from what at least the bible at its best described of him an outstanding example to humanity.

I'm not impressed about the miracles that history often conjures up about him, but the fact he seemed to be a right proper decent bloke, who had a go at healing and feeding people, again putting the miracles to one side, (if he had an abundance of miracle power at his disposal, that would be just too easy for him, anyone could simply put the world to rights with super powers), no I suppose that because he was outspoken against the religious authorities of the day at risk of damn painful torture and death, and then carried on doing his stuff, that is good enough for me.

Again, I am not swayed by the religious types that shove the gospel down your throat, and never have been, but I would agree with anyone all day long that Jesus was a good bloke and I would argue hard to defend him.

However moralistic I might get, I don't think I or anyone in this thread could get off their high horse and match the kind of way he lived, forgiving yer worst enemy, turning a blind eye, having infinite forgiveness, looking for the good in people, all cool in my book.

MeditationMom

I am glad, Pocari Sweat. If you trust your heart and your mind, and admire a bloke like Jesus for his qualities then you will be just fine. Forget about the miracles - an Indian Master once told me that those miracles are a piece of cake for any advanced Yogi, and you can still find them performed in India by many who have aquired what is called Siddhis, I believe - they are not what Jesus' teaching is about. But they sure get people's attention...

Scofflaw

MeditationMom wrote:

Then why do we worship? - women, heroin, gods, cars, celebrities and soccor stars, Jesus, Buddha - whatever pulls or insprites us? Is it not our longing for re-union with something qualitative we do not know or understand, many people call God? You can also call it infinite Love, Peace, Truth, that seem to have been embodied by peole like Jesus or Buddha.

It's an interesting question - why do we have the capability? And the desire to do so?

The desire I think is the easier one to answer - we worship because being a worshipper both feels great, and, at an existential level, relieves us of a lot of anxiety/doubt/guilt/responsibility/burden of being an ego.

The capability is a more difficult question, to which I can safely say I don't know the answer. It is of course tempting to say "we have the capability in order to exercise it" - in other words, use it as a form of proof that God exists. I can't agree with that one, because, as noted, it is possible to worship fellow human beings. It is also possible to get extremely worshipful of the world in general (well, particularly trees, rocks, sunshine, water, and night, in my case). To assume God, then, is to make an unwarranted assumption of generality out of a particular direction of worship.

I am aware that there is some active scientific research in this particular area.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Asiaprod

MeditationMom wrote:

Forget about the miracles - an Indian Master once told me that those miracles are a piece of cake for any advanced Yogi, and you can still find them performed in India by many who have aquired what is called Siddhis, I believe - they are not what Jesus' teaching is about. But they sure get people's attention...

Which is why I will continue to maintain that Jesus spent his missing years studying and learning in Kashmir. That is why there is such a close connection between Buddhism, Jainism, Hinduism and Christianity

Black Swan

Remember a school play in one act. It had a World War I theme and was to have occurred just before the battle had begun.

On one side of the stage were American troops, all kneeling in prayer as led by a minister. In English the minister was praying that the righteous American troops would prevail against the evil enemy in the coming battle.

On the other side of the stage were German troops, all kneeling in prayer as led by a minister. In German the minister was praying that the righteous German troops would prevail against the evil enemy in the coming battle.

Interesting message?

pbsuxok1znja4r

wrote:

It all adds up too clearly to me now

Right so; it "adds up clearly". How does it add up? Why do you believe this? I know it's fun to keep others guessing, but even a faint clue as to your reasoning would be nice right now. Is it because bananas are yellow? Shouldn't be difficult to show your math, like, is it? Tell me how you arrived at such a conclusion, please, otherwise it's not any more worth saying than any other wholly unfounded opinion (which, of course, everyone is perfectly entitled to).

wrote:

that religion offers views that are antiquated, destructive and cause their believers to become hardened in their thinking to the point where they are unable to effectively debate matters without prosectuting any of those that they feel choose to question the teachings of the bible.

Again, I'm going to have plead for you to tell me which "religion" you're talking about. Otherwise you are making a statement so incredibley general as to be...well...incredible.
Is it "prosecution" to openly disagree with something someone says? (Especially when they have provided no evidence toward backing up their opinion)? Because if you think that's "prosecution" (I'm assuming you didn't actually mean to say "persecution", not that it makes any difference), then I hope you never have to experience the genuine article.

wrote:

So I yet again I would have to confirm that religious history is steeped so often in bipolar and hardened thinking of the good/evil sort in going about its business.

Oh dear. As of this moment in time, you have genuinely confirmed precisely nothing about religious thought being "hardened". Please cite me some evidence, give me a reason to believe you. As it stands you may as well be "yet again confirming" the phenomenon of flying pigs for all the justification you've managed to muster up. Sorry to be so sharp with you about this but it's really vital to any form of constructive debate or even pleasurable discussion, for that matter.

As I see it, the whole argument is about this simple; anyone who ever uses a term like "fair", "good", "honourable" or "decent" is a witting or unwitting proponent of either of these two ideas:

A) That there is, in fact, an objective and "bipolar" good and evil, applicable to everyone,

OR

That "good" or "evil" are merely terms to denote what is disagreable to him personally and not necessarily anyone else at all. They are nothing but his own opinion.

There is, of course the option for a Pantheist kind of view (which I think is quite possibly agreement/co-incidental with option , but in such a case it would be pointless for the dualist to argue for or against something to someone else on the basis that it was "fair" of "unfair", or to assign some sort of merit, desirability or any significance at all to something, some action or someone on that basis.

Here's a question:
If there really is no such thing as an objective good or evil, then why should there be anything wrong with believing there is? It is, after all, perfectly practical to do so. Why should there be anything bad about anything being "bipolar", as you say?

MeditationMom

Asiaprod
Which is why I will continue to maintain that Jesus spent his missing years studying and learning in Kashmir. That is why there is such a close connection between Buddhism, Jainism, Hinduism and Christianity

If I had to bet my life on it, no doubt did Jesus spend his "lost years" - that the Christian Churches really should be much more interested in than they are - in Kashmir and most likely many other places. I don't see Jesus staying put, but wandering around trying to learn as much and from as many teachers as possible.

Scofflaw
It's an interesting question - why do we have the capability? And the desire to do so? (worship)

I am aware that there is some active scientific research in this particular area.

I heard about brain research that says that there is an actual area in the brain just for what we call religion, worship, believing in illogical, mystical things - which does not surprise me. If you ever read any of Joseph Campbell's research - all religious thought systems have the same elements, from old pagan ones to more recent or "evolved" ones. Things like the trinity, Mother of God, Son of God, Christchild, and many others. If you've never heard of Joseph Campbell, check him out. His research is truely eye opening as far as religion goes. It seems to be a deep human need to feel devotion, worship and believing in something beyond our logical, small minds and hearts, and at the same time it tells us not to take things literally, and in the end, needing to also go beyond this part of he brain to find liberation.

Blue_Lagoon
On the other side of the stage were German troops, all kneeling in prayer as led by a minister. In German the minister was praying that the righteous German troops would prevail against the evil enemy in the coming battle.

I get your point and am not trying to dispute it. All prayers like that propably are just to calm us down and relieve us from our overwhelming feelings of powerlessness during something as horrible as war. BUT - just to not let this go unknown, my German grandparents on both sides- during WW2- prayed every day that the Americans would win the war, as life under Hitler - even as blue-eyed Christians - was unbearble and sickening.

God needs to be understood in deeper ways. One way to explain it is to say he is like the sun. A presence. Life and death, good and evil, are not things personally managed by him, but happen because of him. For the Atheists for example to be upset or disappointed in God is like getting mad at the sun for giving us sunburns, drying out our crops and causing people dying of thirst in Africa. It makes no sence. To be aware of the sun's action and power, and to be grateful for the sun's warmth and life-giving energy is part of being happy, but to thank the sun for "directly" giving you a great tan or growing roses beautifully in your garden and only tulip's in your enemie's garden, is silly. The difference between the sun and God is that through right prayer and meditation we become able to channel God's power into the world. It is a creative, harmonious, loving, peace giving, healing power as demonstrated so impressivly by someone like Jesus.

scouser.tommy
Here's a question:
If there really is no such thing as an objective good or evil, then why should there be anything wrong with believing there is? It is, after all, perfectly practical to do so. Why should there be anything bad about anything being "bipolar", as you say?

When you are a child you need to learn that there is good and evil in order to seek or avoid each one respectively. It is not only practical but highly necessary. Take the example of a molesting priest.

Then, as you get older, you learn that his actions are the result of his own abuse as a child and you may even be able to understand and forgive him. Now you are confused. You don't want to judge him as evil. Even your religion tells you not to judge. This is what is called the divine paradox, because now you have to come full circle. You declare him evil with no malice in your heart, with full understanding and compassion, even with the full awareness of your own inborn capacity for evil, and do whatever it takes to keep him from harming more children, even if that means hanging him from the next tree, or, God forbid, take his convenient job away from him. If it were as simple as sending him on his way and tell him "Go, and sin no more" I'd vote for that, but that doesn't seem to work, and may not even have worked with the adulterous woman Jesus sent on his way. This story for me is not about forgiving evil and letting evil run free or unpunished, but about looking within at our own inborn capacity for evil, or already commited evil, and not throwing stones in manic self righeousness for revenge.

BrianCalgary

MeditationMom wrote:

If I had to bet my life on it, no doubt did Jesus spend his "lost years" - that the Christian Churches really should be much more interested in than they are - in Kashmir and most likely many other places. I don't see Jesus staying put, but wandering around trying to learn as much and from as many teachers as possible.

What would Jesus have to learn? This is nothing but speculation. I have never seen any proof to show that a trip into the Indian subcontinent ever occured.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

have you ever seen any proof that he died and was ressurected?

Pocari Sweat

If you were keen on betting and wanted odds on whether he died, then it would be a one horse race, but as for being resurrected, there is of course no proof. It is all about faith as with the rest of the things asked in most religions in order to gain some sense of spiritual oneness with the religion you follow.

I have so often dragged up the extreme examples of maybe what are the daft things that don't make much sense in the bible, but at the same time appearing to not elaborate on the many good things offered in abundance elsewhere in the bible. I do respect that many of these things require faith as well, but I appreciate if good things come about by following routes, which to me don't always add up logically, then it still can't be all that bad.

I respect Tommy Scouser's comprehensive stance in breaking down what may be disparaging about the less constructive points i have picked out in the bible in my original and later posts, but I will of cours address them as best I can, hoping we can at least agree to differ if we get no resolution.

My stance is fairly simple. Jesus; good bloke. Undecided about what god is. Bible sounds inconsistent and often cantankerous bunch of tales many of which don't do religion, god or Jesus much good, but offset by a lot of proper cracking stuff I agree with in the gospel, although not liking it shoved down me neck.

I am agnostic and probably cannot be swayed into the atheist camp or religious camp either way because I see too much dogma required to venture into the extremes either way. The extremes I do not agree with because I am more moderate and a bit laid back, I would rather see a bit more humour about it all rather than get a bit too serious.

I know seriousness if often required in the other two camps and I often respect a lot of the arguments given, but I still don't see what all the fuss is about; if hell damnation is my path in questioning religion, well i'm not worried because I am not religious, and if I am daft not just saying god does not exist and it is all bunkum, well I think it is also daft just dismissing the fact we somehow got here on this forum talking after 14 billion years of something happening prior to the talking of which we don't fully understand.

Asiaprod

BrianCalgary wrote:

What would Jesus have to learn? This is nothing but speculation. I have never seen any proof to show that a trip into the Indian subcontinent ever occured.

There is documened evidence that he did spend time there and in many other places around the sub-continent. Maybe you need to do a little researched. Here is a good place to start "The lost years of Jesus" by Elizabeth Clare Prophet. You couls also research the life of Saint Issa, Buddhist Lamas do not lie, they have nothing to gain from it. If you take time out to study the Indian beliefs and systems you will be amazed by the similarities that exist between them and Christianity. Not to mention the fact that they also predate your own system.:rolleyes: Of course, you may then have to rethink some of your own beliefs. Where do you believe he spent his lost years. Why have you no documented proof of where he spent his time. He was an important guy, are you going to tell me that he just crashed on the scean at 30 years of age firing on all cyclinders. No way. He also had to study and learn. Where did he do this.

MeditationMom

What would Jesus have to learn?

To control his temper when in his elders' temple.
To not give into temptation(40 days in the desert)
To go beyond doubt (Father, why have you forsaken me?)
To face his fear of death, even torture.
To forgive injustice.
To trust.
To love beyond reason. ( Forgive them for they do not know what they do.)

Or do you believe that Jesus was born perfect, instead of human, and therefore all these things were somewhat easy for him, as they would naturally have to be for someone who had nothing to learn?

He died for us in the sense that he showed us the Way. He showed us the Way and became the Way. His Being and his actions became one and the same. He demonstated the potential of a human being to go beyond biological instincts, like self-preservation, fear and greed.

His path was such a difficult one. Without him having to learn anything, as the human being that he was - even as the Son of God - his life, his challenges, his suffering, would all be meaningless. He is our brother. Don't we need to try to understand how he learned and what he learned, and aspire to learn the same - to love and trust beyond reason, and at great risk?

May our paths be a little easier.

BrianCalgary

Asiaprod wrote:

There is documened evidence that he did spend time there and in many other places around the sub-continent. Maybe you need to do a little researched. Here is a good place to start "The lost years of Jesus" by Elizabeth Clare Prophet. .

This is a quote from Prophets web page:

Will knowing the answers to these questions change our lives today? Yes, it will.

Knowing the truth that has been secreted away for nearly 2000 years will set us free spiritually (Someone who has found a secret that no one else knows about, except for those running the conspiracy?)
and allow us to have profound relationships with our parents, partners, children and even with
our Father/Mother God.

What does the feminine side of being look like in modern times for both men and women?

Consider new trends to develop the intuitive, creative, sensitive, right side of the brain;
the team approach to business; the "soft side" of management; the accent on relationship
building. These are indicators of the culture of the Divine Feminine.


Sorry Asia, I have great difficulty in giving her any credibility.:eek:

MeditationMom

God's aspects are neither male not female. Nature's laws are, yin and yang, male and female in an eternal dance.
God is neither, and both, at the same time, and everything appears and disappears from "him" ( just a convenient word), into him and out of him, with him as the source of all creation and the power behind all of creation.

I agree with Brian on this Prophet Woman. But I haven't looked into the rest of her stuff, or her research into Jesus' lost years.

Asiaprod

BrianCalgary wrote:

Sorry Asia, I have great difficulty in giving her any credibility.:eek:

Which is acceptable to me. The book is just to open the mind to other possibilities, that same way in which I look at the Gospels. My take is on the accounts in the Buddhist documents, the accounts of the Lamas, and the history and teachings of the person known as Saint Issa.
You still have not replied to the question I asked you. According to your records and teachings where did Jesus spend his missing years and doing what. Please don't come back and tell me that a simple carpenter taught his son all he knew, you know that is highly unlikely.
"Who taught Jesus what he knew?"

Pocari Sweat

I'm probably guessing here but leading figures in philosophy, science, engineering etc, don't necessarily have to be schooled by other academics to achieve a level of distinction in their fields of expertise or historical genius.

Isaac Newton and Friedrich Nietzche were shining examples of brilliant intellect coupled with backgrounds in high profile academic institutions.

Comparing similar brilliance, Leonardo Da Vinci and William Shakespeare were gifted figures that may not have been leading figures in the best universities of the times, but had a certain x factor that very few people in history could be compared to.

All these figures are better documented in history due to the advent of the printing press than academic figures found further back in history such as aristotle, plato, socrates and homer that have some written record of their studies who again were scholarly figures in the universities of the day.

Gifted figures, and there must be a few, who had notoriety prior to the advent of the printing press and outside the circle of the academic institutions of the day, are possibly small in number, and I expect Jesus was possibly one of these examples.

Without getting spiritual or religious, if I guess that Jesus was possibly one of the exeptionally gifted people of his day, who was driven by a very acute intellect of profound compassion towards his fellow man, and who could not compromise his ideals and tolerate hypocrasy or hatred and was a gifted speaker and spoke his mind, then surely he must of rubbed up a few of the authorities of the times but he must have also accrued a popular following who sought hope in bettering their lives and took solice in idealistic views coupled with the sort of evangelistic hype that even americans of today's modern society get drawn into although back then they were living in times of uncertain facts and statistics or basic standards of widely held academic study and view points that we have ready access to nowadays.

If he is not the son of god, then I could guess that he was an exceptional thinker who may not have had an excursion into other lands and cultures in order to gain the qualities of his thinking and outspoken beliefs that are apparent in the writings of the bible.

Of course he could have had extensive travels to foreign lands to gain the sort of wisdom he seemed to have in abundance in the teachings of the bible and I do not discount this as a possibility, but it is not necessarily so.

It is not outside the scope of possibility that he was some sort of radical genius of his day, and not the son of god.

Organised religion says he was, which puts me off the idea further more.

If you ignore any super powers that organised religion seem to so often imbue him with, then I think he would be a better bloke without them, more down to earth and easier to repect for the hardships he faced in daily life alongside his fellow man and what he accomplished.

The history of organised religion that followed his life and the many inhumane acts that religion and the writers of the bible are accountable for, are to my mind too many to just ignore and allow to be written off as acceptable because they are simply graced with holiness and godliness by the religious authorites and their followers.

I expect in these modern times, most populations of western societies are in the main part integrated with religious institutions and a lesser percentage are atheists or agnostics, but this does not spur me on to follow the crowd and many of those I suspect that use the church in these modern times for christenings, weddings and funerals, are not too serious about their convictions anyway.

Black Swan

MeditationMom wrote:

I get your point and am not trying to dispute it. All prayers like that propably are just to calm us down and relieve us from our overwhelming feelings of powerlessness during something as horrible as war. BUT - just to not let this go unknown, my German grandparents on both sides- during WW2- prayed every day that the Americans would win the war, as life under Hitler - even as blue-eyed Christians - was unbearble and sickening.

Like no offense intended, but the school play was about World War I not II. The Americans were fighting the Kaiser not Hitler. I would assume that both sides were more of a mirror reflection of prayer during WWI?

Pocari Sweat

Again, because of the polarised writings of the bible with god taking sides on behalf of the jews against the egyptians, I think the bible does not help us in today's conflicts when raving nutcases like george bush and his evangelical ilk rant on about god being behind their causes. If there was any hope for a respectable reputation for god and christianity, then when it comes to armies marching off to kill people then keep the bible out of it.

What answer anyone would have for god sitting back and letting the nazis commit genocide on the jews in WW2, god only knows, I'm sure Brian Calgary could not in his wildest dreams come up with a reasoning I could even start to get my head round.

The bible contains as much nonesense as possible for anyone to pick up and make a mockery of, whether its Brian or Dubya, (and not wanting to associate myself with these chaps), me as well.

Asiaprod

Pocari Sweat wrote:

I'm probably guessing here but leading figures in philosophy, science, engineering etc, don't necessarily have to be schooled by other academics to achieve a level of distinction in their fields of expertise or historical genius.

Isaac Newton and Friedrich Nietzche were shining examples of brilliant intellect coupled with backgrounds in high profile academic institutions.

Granted, but then none of them claimed to be the son of God, nor were they acredited with at the age of 12 bettering their eldeers in the temple in debates on the beliefs of their time.

Sorry, I can't buy into he was born knowing everything. He was taught. And well by the sounds of it. It may also be noted that Leonardo Da Vinci was very clear in his mind where Jesus stood. John the Baptist was far more influential and important than given credit for;)

Pocari Sweat

Asiaprod wrote:

Granted, but then none of them claimed to be the son of God, nor were they acredited with at the age of 12 bettering their eldeers in the temple in debates on the beliefs of their time.

Sorry, I can't buy into he was born knowing everything. He was taught. And well by the sounds of it. It may also be noted that Leonardo Da Vinci was very clear in his mind where Jesus stood. John the Baptist was far more influential and important than given credit for;)

I'm not too sorry, but lets look at this point now.

If some bloke says he is the son of god, then it is likely he possibly had some brains to get out of being stoned to death in bible times to talk people round, so he may have had something, either, brains, personality or actually being the son of god, the latter not having saved him from crucifixion.

Rather than say at the age of 12, it is therefore obvious that he must have been taught and must of had some high profile schooling or adventure to other lands to gain great wisdom, and this counts out the likelyhood of early genius before he had chance in his twenties to travel and gain great wisdom, then this is like saying forget the missing years for accumulation of great wisdom, he got it all before he was 12, but in these earlier years where more things were meant to be recorded about his whereabouts there is no mention of some high profile schooling.

At that age it looks like he may have had some inherent debating skills, to outwit temple elders and had not yet gone on his travels to gain more.

Asiaprod

Pocari Sweat wrote:

but in these earlier years where more things were meant to be recorded about his whereabouts there is no mention of some high profile schooling.

As I tried to explain, there is a lot said about it, where he learned, what he learned and what he was capable of doing. The problem is it was not said by any Christian, nor was it written in any book produced in his native land. So worrying were the records that the church set out to track down these books and managed to get their hands on a few under the guise of studying them. These books were never returned and as a result the remaining books have been marked of limits. They may be viewed on a personal basis, at the discretion of the head Lamas, but it is forbidden for them to leave the monasteries where they remain to this day. I have spent many years studying this. Though most people laugh at the Tomb of jesus christ web site, one will find much information of value there. It is a question that will not be resolved anytime soon as it effects some of the core beliefs of Christianity. I can not prove to anyone through my words that they exist, and anyone cannot through their words prove to me that they do not. I am still waiting to hear what christianity has to say about these missing years. Strange there is nothing written when one considers how important a figure this Jesus is. The only reference I know of is the Infancy Gospel which of course has been discredited because it shows that Jesus also had quite a temper and did some naughty, dare I say, childish and ungodly, things.

Scofflaw

Asiaprod wrote:

The only reference I know of is the Infancy Gospel which of course has been discredited because it shows that Jesus also had quite a temper and did some naughty, dare I say, childish and ungodly, things.

English Carol (called Bitter Withy):

As it befell on a bright holiday
Small hail from the sky did fall.
Our Saviour asked his mother dear
If he might go and play at ball.

At ball, at ball, my own dear son,
It is time that you were gone.
But don't let me hear of any doings
At night when you come home.

So up the hill and down the hill
Our sweet young Saviour run
Until he met three rich young lords
A-walkin in the sun.

Good morn, good mom, good morn, said they.
Good morning all, said he.
And which of you three rich young lords
Will play at ball with me?

We are all lords' and ladies' sons
Born in our bower and hall,
And you are nothing but a Jewess' child
Born in an ox's stall.

If you're all lords' and ladies' sons
Born in your bower and hall,
I'll make you believe in your latter end
I'm an angel above you all.

So he made him a bridge of the beams of the sun
And over the river danced he.
The rich young lords chased after him
And drowned they were all three.

Then up the hill and down the hill
Three rich young mothers run,
Crying: Mary mild, fetch home your child
For ours he's drowned each one.

So Mary mild fetched home her child,
And laid him across her knee,
And with a handful of withy twigs
She gave him slashes three.

Ay, bitter withy! Ay, bitter withy!
You've caused me to smart.
And the withy shall be the very first tree
To perish at the heart.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Pocari Sweat

Was Jesus drowning people?

I know baptism was popular back then, maybe using a bit of soap for a quick wash would be cheating, but drowning people is going a bit far surely?

staple

Asiaprod wrote:

These books were never returned and as a result the remaining books have been marked of limits. They may be viewed on a personal basis, at the discretion of the head Lamas, but it is forbidden for them to leave the monasteries where they remain to this day. I have spent many years studying this.

That would be extremely naughty. In Europe you would usually not be allowed to 'borrow' a valuable manuscript; you would stay in the monastery and copy it out. Do you have any idea why the surviving ones have not been published using printing or the internet? Surely there are lots of people who would be interested in scrutinising them, and the lamas are always interested in spreading truth?

Asiaprod

staple wrote:

That would be extremely naughty. In Europe you would usually not be allowed to 'borrow' a valuable manuscript; you would stay in the monastery and copy it out. Do you have any idea why the surviving ones have not been published using printing or the internet? Surely there are lots of people who would be interested in scrutinising them, and the lamas are always interested in spreading truth?

Check out the tomb of jesus christ web site, there are copies on line. The reason I guess they are not publish is that the Lamas are not really bothered getting involved withthe issue. They pay great credit to the person known as Saint Issa and there are many shrines in his honor. Do a web search and if you have no joy PM me.

BrianCalgary

Mordeth wrote:

have you ever seen any proof that he died?

Yes. Writings of Roman and Jewish historians of the time mention Jesus who was crucified in under the leadership of Pontius Pilate.

Mordeth wrote:

and was ressurected?

His tomb was heavily guarded by Roman soldiers, yet it was empty. He also appeared to over 500 people.

BrianCalgary

Asiaprod wrote:

Which is acceptable to me. The book is just to open the mind to other possibilities, that same way in which I look at the Gospels.

Fair enough.

Asiaprod wrote:

You still have not replied to the question I asked you. According to your records and teachings where did Jesus spend his missing years and doing what. Please don't come back and tell me that a simple carpenter taught his son all he knew, you know that is highly unlikely.
"Who taught Jesus what he knew?"

They have not been recorded. We know that his family fled to Egypt, returned to Galilee, then Jesus was teaching in the temple. Anything beyond that is sheer speculation.


My guess would be that He learned carpentry, since Joseph was a carpenter and it was the norm to take on your Dad's business.

He also may have studied under a local Rabbi who agreed to take Him on as a student, which was also normal for the time. From what I understand Jewish boys in their studies would have to commit the scripture to memory in obedience of the command, Jeremiah 31:33
"This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time," declares the LORD. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.

Then on top of that He would have the leading of God, His Father during His study and preparation time.

There is no doubt that by the time Jesus embarked on His mission He knew what it was and where it would end up.

Thanks
Brian

PS have you got a link to the tomb of Jesus website?

staple

Asiaprod wrote:

Check out the tomb of jesus christ web site, there are copies on line. The reason I guess they are not publish is that the Lamas are not really bothered getting involved withthe issue. They pay great credit to the person known as Saint Issa and there are many shrines in his honor. Do a web search and if you have no joy PM me.

I've seen this
http://www.tombofjesus.com/
and the docs linked from core/ancient-documents/index.html
And they all seem a bit opaque to me; not meaning to be offensive but what's presented on that site seems no stronger than Da Vinci Code materials. I've seen the BBC4 documentary too, but perhaps would need to read the (seemingly extensive range of) books for more depth. Fair play to them for citing opponents of their hypothesis too.

God is knowable to everyone, and we are all created in His image. People who have sought spiritual and intellectual depth, like Buddha or Plato, seek the eternal objective truth. This would explain why Buddha and Christ had similar teachings.

Asiaprod

staple wrote:

People who have sought spiritual and intellectual depth, like Buddha or Plato, seek the eternal objective truth. This would explain why Buddha and Christ had similar teachings.

It would indeed go part of the way. Maybe I am lucky in that I have read extensively and studied, I live closer to the region and people, I was once a catholic and have now been a Buddhist for 20+ years. My perspective is different and I see and understand aspects that other may miss. It is not important to me what path each chooses to follow as long as one lives a caring life, it all works out in the end no matter which camp turns out to be right. I draw the line when one camp arrogantly decides to impose its morals and values on others that do not subscribe to their way of thinking. This is what I hold against christian authorities and in particular the very corrupt organization know as the Catholic Church. Each has the right to follow their own beliefs be them Christian, agnostic or atheist in content, and nobody has the right to claim superiority over any other group. History has a habit of turning up surprises, excuse me using this well worn phrase, The truth is out there:)