The teachings of Christ are logically, intelligently, undeniably the Truth. Test it!

Re IAMIAM

You wrote (if I got my quotes ascribed correctly):

["My friend, it is our judgements of this existence that brings us such hell. If you cast aside your judgements you will see quite clearly that this existence is heaven."]

This is similarly expressed in Mahayana-buddhism: Samsara = Nirvana.

Personally I find the buddhist systematic cosmogony/cosmology and methodology associated with it more clear, more to the point, more in accordance with SOME contemporary science and more useful at a practical level.

This is not a moot-point for me in this context though.

Re Freedish

You're just preaching your standard sermon as always, with little regard for the actual topic.

In general.

Sorry about the massed posts. A flu' made me arrive late at the scene; my intention isn't to 'flood' the thread into confusion.

Originally posted by bogomil
Re IAMIAM

You wrote:

["The creation story of Genesis is the best explanation that the Prophets of old could deduce based on the evidence they had at the time of its writing. At that time, man did not know about dinosaurs. Man did not live with dinosaurs, how could man write about them before we developed the understanding we now have?

Even with all we know now, we still cannot write any better of a creation story. No matter what story we come up with, it too will be outdated in time with more discoveries about our existence."]

You are amongst my favourite theists, and most of the time rather rational and compassionate in a decent way. Why did you have to go and state something like above?

Disregarding dinosaurs, which is rather outside my competence, and not being to nitpicking about what was 'deduction' and plain guessing, when genesis was formulated, the last paragraph is below your usual high standard.

You are not seriously considering a 'knowledge-vacuum' argument as an excuse to justify a possible value of genesis. The cosmology of genesis 1 is pure bosh, and while science maybe hasn't the final answer, it's at least well on its way.

You have hurt my feelings.

Your friend Bogomil

Now you know I cannot have you going around with hurt feelings that I have caused my friend. Allow me to elaborate a bit in an attempt soothe the rub my lack of clarity may have contributed to.

The creation story in Genesis and John are the products of people who have taken the time to observe their existence and formulate an understanding of how it came to be. Could anyone do any better? Nope. All we can do is make better guesses based on new information as our observations present it. Our new and better guesses may be closer to the truth of the matter, but that does not mean we should denigrate those who came before us and did their best. They observed, thought, and were inspired, just as we are today. Honor them for their work, thank them, for without their efforts, without them looking up and thinking on what they saw, how much would we know today? Honor thy mother and father. These old Prophets may be way off mark by today's understanding, but they have shown the way to discovery. They were the first to question "Who am I?, Why am I here?, How did I get here?" and God answered!

How did God answer? INSPIRATION

I find value in every creation story. It shows that my ancestors had the same burning desire to understand who we are that I have. Through their stories I am able to view the world through their eyes. It is a step back in TIME.

I only hope that a thousand years from now, our descendants will be so kind to our humble attempts at explaining our existence.

We are in this thing together, from the first Man, to the last. The future is only an edifice we have erected on the foundations of our past. Today, we build.

With Love,

Your Brother

Originally posted by Nosred
How exactly am I supposed to 'test' it? This is a very misleading thread title, as you have supported none of your titles claims. All you said in the OP was what we weren't supposed to discuss in the thread.

The idea is to either prove or disprove Christs teachings my friend. I'll give you an example:

That which you wish done to you, do unto others.

Do you dispute this?

If a man strikes you on the cheek, offer him the other.

Do you think this is not a truth that would lead to a peaceful existence? If not why not?

Dig around, if you find a teaching of Christ that is untrue, state which teaching and why you believe it is untrue. The idea is to discuss it.

Originally posted by Nosred
I hate it when people start threads like these just to get other members to come validate their beliefs for them.

I dislike Okra. You won't catch me eating Okra just so I can say how much I dislike it.


With Love,

Your Brother

Re IAMIAM

You wrote:

["The creation story in Genesis and John are the products of people who have taken the time to observe their existence and formulate an understanding of how it came to be."]

True, but even with that time's standard of observation and processing, the result is shaky. Some of the claims of genesis can be disproved by the naked eye.

Quote: ["Could anyone do any better? Nope."]

Even if you include 'can', the answer is YES ('could' is implied in my first comment). I'm 100% sure, you're familiar with contemporary scientific cosmology, as compared to genesis cosmology....need to go through it for the umpteenth time (off-topic though)?

Quote: ["All we can do is make better guesses based on new information as our observations present it. Our new and better guesses may be closer to the truth of the matter,"]

Because I like you so much, I will graciously pretend I didn't read the 'guesses' (is that how you consider rational and logic systematic methodology?) and agree with you, as I did in my latest post: We're closer to the truth of the matter, and further away from pure guessing.

Quote: ["but that does not mean we should denigrate those who came before us and did their best."]

True, but those who STILL use genesis in spite of bla, bla modern etc have in my opinion lived too long in a holy bubble some centuries old, and need to get out in the fresh air and learn some basic science.

Quote: ["They observed, thought, and were inspired, just as we are today. Honor them for their work, thank them, for without their efforts, without them looking up and thinking on what they saw, how much would we know today?"]

Without the counter-productive 'efforts' of christian doctrinalists, science would be a couple of centuries older and wiser. You're not suggesting, that comtemporary science has its roots in literal bible-reading and christian scholastic, are you?

Quote: ["They were the first to question "Who am I?, Why am I here?, How did I get here?" and God answered!"]

It may be pointless to debate, but to my knowledge Jain beat even the forerunners of OT historically, and comes up with considerable better answers.

Quote: ["How did God answer? INSPIRATION"]

I'm a great believer in and supporter of inspiration, which doesn't necessarily lead me direct to 'god'. Now, as you know, I will not go the path of the reductionist scientism'ist and ask you: "Show me an inspiragon particle", but only ask you to explain how people who've never given 'god' a second thought in the context of science, can manifest inspiration.

(Please don't get carried away, and say, that 'god' uses us as his extended arms. You should be above circle-argumentation, as I know from earlier).

Sad to say, but our latest, most famous god-man Einstein, cheated for a while, when his pre-deterministic god-universe was threatened be emerging scientific theory.

Quote: ["I find value in every creation story. It shows that my ancestors had the same burning desire to understand who we are that I have. Through their stories I am able to view the world through their eyes. It is a step back in TIME."9

Historical nostalgy is probably inportant for those with interests in that direction; but it doesn't exactly add to reflections on epistemology, logic, science, philosophy and other systems of systematic thinking.

Quote: ["I only hope that a thousand years from now, our descendants will be so kind to our humble attempts at explaining the our existence."]

Or confuse them, as time will show.

Quote: ["We are in this thing together, from the first Man, to the last. The future is only an edifice we have erected on the foundations of our past. Today, we build."]

I believe, that you and I could build well together, as we in reality (when I don't tease you) see much eye-to-eye. Apart from your god-bothering stuff, I think you're an excellent person.

To round it up, I'm not restricting myself to a narrow 'scientism' map. I acknowledge anomalies, and hope for some ultimate reality (where I would like to include intellectual sanity together with the compassion-part along the path leading there).

Only I don't need any 2000 year old stories to guide me in my search.

With warm greetings

Your friend Bogomil

Re IAMIAM

I DID mention it, didn't I. The golden rule thingy, yesno?

You wrote:

["That which you wish done to you, do unto others."]

Now what if you're a hard-core extremist christian repenting-sinner-flagellant with wishes of martyrdom? Should that apply to 'others'?

It was part of the offical excuses in the inquisition. The heretics and other of that time's 'terrorists' were burned so their souls could be cleansed and thus possibly go to heaven. "For their own good".

"Now if I was a heretic, instead of a very holy ...., I would certainly like to be burned on a fire to have my soul cleansed"

I can hardly imagine, that you follow that line of thought. But the golden rule sorely needs to be re-adjusted to tolerance expectations.

Originally posted by bogomil
Now what if you're a hard-core extremist christian repenting-sinner-flagellant with wishes of martyrdom? Should that apply to 'others'?

It was part of the offical excuses in the inquisition. The heretics and other of that time's 'terrorists' were burned so their souls could be cleansed and thus possibly go to heaven. "For their own good".

"Now if I was a heretic, instead of a very holy ...., I would certainly like to be burned on a fire to have my soul cleansed"

I can hardly imagine, that you follow that line of thought. But the golden rule sorely needs to be re-adjusted to tolerance expectations.

edit on 29-1-2011 by bogomil because: Syntax

Simply put my friend, if one believes that they would want to be burned to cleanse their spirit, demonstrate it by throwing themselves on the pyre first.



With Love,

Your Brother

Re IAMIAM

You wrote:

["Simply put my friend, if one believes that they would want to be burned to cleanse their spirit, demonstrate it by throwing themselves on the pyre first."]


Well, they didn't, which in the best of all worlds should have stopped heretic-burnings.

But then, if the christianities had succeeded in rounding up some christian fire-kamikazes, would that then justify heretic-burnings?

I'm not just being facetious, the problem is real in most human relations.

Originally posted by bogomil
Re IAMIAM

You wrote:

["Simply put my friend, if one believes that they would want to be burned to cleanse their spirit, demonstrate it by throwing themselves on the pyre first."]


Well, they didn't, which in the best of all worlds should have stopped heretic-burnings.

But then, if the christianities had succeeded in rounding up some christian fire-kamikazes, would that then justify heretic-burnings?

I'm not just being facetious, the problem is real in most human relations.

If you read Christs teachings my friend, you will see that such actions are clearly contradictory to his intent. What better way to discredit an enemy than to claim to adopt his teachings, then commit horrific acts in his name.

It might even make people despise the original teachings to the point of never giving them so much as a glance.

Remember my friend, I am not Christian.



With Love,

Your Brother

Re IAMIAM

I haven't forgotten, that you're not a christian, and your relationship to Jesus' core teachings and what I prefer to consider an un-named possible ultimate 'reality', is really fine with me.

I would respect a buddhist monk, a jain, a charitable atheist or a gnostic 'parfait' (had any survived) the same way I do you because of their compassion attitude; not as a dead doctrine, but as a living practise.

That's the basis of my attitude. But then you left the IMO pure faith approach and started bringing logic, intelligens and truth into it, which adds a kind of 'academic' perspective to it, which I have some problems with accepting. I can understand, that external inherited information can be very useful, otherwise mankind would have to re-invent the wheel every generation or so.

I can also understand, that some kinds of information can be inspirational, but in the case of the 'invisible' part of existence like e.g. theism, metaphysics etc. the manuals are at best only fingers pointing at the moon. And sometimes the manuals even point in the direction of plain useless or dangerous nonsense.

So I only really trust the experience, not the map.

You and I lately went a bit astray from both OP and the general line of the thread, which doesn't bother me. We can go back, to where things derailed. This is not a hot-tempered "I must win" thread, where positions on positions on positions are upheld with debate-tactical paranoia.

Being the author, you'll be better to redirect us, if you see a purpose. Otherwise I believe, we'll meet again.

Your friend Bogomil

reply to post by bogomil


You know you are one of my favorite's to discuss these matters with my friend. You always bring a smile to my face. I hate to redirect as I could spend weeks just picking your brain, not as a means to get to who is right and who is wrong, but rather to just get to know one another.

That is why I have these discussions. I thoroughly enjoy knowing people. It isn't important to prove who is right and wrong on any issue, what is important is getting to why they have the views they have.

But I digress as there is a certain responsibility on me as the OP to keep this on target.

So, my original premise was that Christs teachings are logical, intelligent, and undeniable truth.

Lets break down his two great commandments

Love God with all your being and your neighbor as yourself.

Is this logically true? YES

What is God to Christ? As a Jewish Rabbi God would be Omnipotent (all powerful), Omnipresent (everywhere), Omnibenevolent (strictly GOOD). Nothing represents God (First two of Moses Ten Commandments). God is Christs Father (Obviously, he created Man, we are all God's children)

What fits this bill? God is the great unknown from which everything was created. It is the mystery which keeps revealing itself the more man learns about his existence. No man can behold God in its entirety for we have only scratched the surface of this existence. Look around, everywhere your eyes rest are but a part of the whole that is God. What about those places the eyes cannot go, but only the mind can see? Look within, God is there as well. Isn't this Magnificent! Isn't this existence the most spectacular thing to behold, even the little bit that we have seen? Should we LOVE it? ABSOLUTELY! Love it! Love it! Love it! and never stop discovering what it has to offer us. The more we seek to understand, the more we learn, and the greater the gifts we are given!

Never, ever, ever, think you have reached the end of discovery and have found God in its entirety. To do so is idolatry.

"Oh but you can't prove God exists!" you might say.

It is madness to think otherwise my friend. Look around us at the precision of our existence. There is no randomness. If there was, existence would not be possible. Everything is in a very precise order, and everything interacts with everything in a precise balancing act of cause and effect. There is no vacuum. Every single space no matter how infinitely small or infinitely large is filled with something. The microcosm is intimately tied to the macrocosm. I can understand disputing God as some religions have made God out to be, but to denounce the intelligent order of the Universe is arrogance of the highest order, or simply madness.

Love your neighbor.

Why? Because we need each other. Every single one of us has something to offer our society. We have spent far too much time judging each other for our differences. Look around at our existence. God Loves variety. He created over 1400 species of ANTS for Christs sake! There is not a single one of us that God would condemn. Why? Because we exist! God is all powerful, remember. God would not allow something to exist if God did not want it to exist.

What about the evil in the world?

Well man created the evil, and it is up to man to get rid of it. This is the burden of free will. We put in place wisemen, chiefs, Judges, Kings, and Governments to pass the burden of managing the free will of all to build societies which have brought us this far. These systems have always oppressed some freedoms innate to man in order to protect the whole of one particular group or another. Learning about our free will and our environment has been a dangerous road. We are babies spiritually, and free will is a loaded gun which we have used on each other repeatedly. Now we have bigger guns. It is time to grow up and take responsibility for our own free will.

We have harmed each other terribly over the years. The pain only keeps us divided and angry at each other. It is time to heal. It is time to forgive. It is time to love one another.

Look around at the world we have created. WE HAVE DONE THIS.

Watch as our world comes unravelled. What will we replace the old order of things with? Will it be an oppressive world Empire which clamps down on us with an iron grip for our own good?

Or will it be a liberating Brotherhood of Man where we all work together to ensure that all have what we need to live a blissful life free of want as we reach out to the stars?

I do not know what others see as the logical path to take.

As for me, I am a King of my own free will, and I will treat my fellow man likewise as Kings and Queens.

I love this existence, I believe it is perfect, and I love my fellow Man, because he too is perfect. My God does not make mistakes, he only creates opportunities for me to learn and to love.

With Love,

Your Brother

Originally posted by zerbot565
i guess what first has to be established is

are they the teachings of jesus or the teachings of whom ever wrote the text in which they describe a teaching of jesus ,

i say this because while one might write kind and logical assumptions on how to behave, in the same texts there are barbaric teachings, by the same writers

how can you stone an child for being loud mouth and at the same time spread love and turn the cheek ,
you have freewill yet bound to commandments,

it just makes no sence,

as for the prayer thing , pray and you shall receive ,
i was under the impression worship used to be work ship
so in a sence : do your work/labour/shores and you get results ,

sorry for not bringing anything of value to the discussion ,

Your comments are of value!
However, the bit about "you stone an child for being loud mouth" is in the Old Testament, which was written when people had less knowledge of, and a different view of God from what Jesus later taught...
Nowadays, we are the body of Christ, we answer each others' prayers! (I heard of an example of that in an email from a friend of mine today - when his accomodation problems were solved by a friend who didn't even know about them, but made an offer that solved the problem!
Vicky

Originally posted by KingKeever1611

Originally posted by IAMIAM


For consistency in the discussion, please use only the King James Version of the New Testament as your reference. This isn't to say this version is more correct than any other, but simply that it is the one I am most familiar with.

Oh, don't beat around the bush, of course the King James Bible is heads and shoulders above the rest of the rift raft bibles out there! And your not the only one "most familiar" with the Holy King James Bible, it is the best selling book of all time, in any country, in any year. Also, its completely inspired by God, from its chapter and number headings, to its italicized words, right down to the 1769 edition of the 1611 Bible we use today after correct grammar was established. Don't let and fool college teacher or book publishing company con you into believing differently.

Anyway, good day!

You're having a laugh, right? You know that the chapter and verse divisions were late additions and are not contained in the original manuscripts, don't you?
Modern translations are just as good as the KJV, better in fact, because language evolves, and words change their meanings...
The Bible needs interpretation - therefore no one should rely on their own ideas, but seek enlightenment from their church,
Vicky

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Christ's primary teaching was to love one another. To love each other equally, with no favouritism between us.


I keep hearing that this was his primary teaching, but I have never seen anyone actually prove that this is his primary teaching. As someone who has read the Bible, I have not found this to be evident in the writings.

Except that there aren't many who have to steal to survive...

A world that doesn't value life? I'm quite sure our world actually values life quite a bit.

First, John 13.34-35.
In the KJV it says : 34) A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.

35)By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another."
King James version Jn 13:34-35
Secondly, sadly, there are heaps of people who have to steal to survive, which is evidence that our world does not value life a lot at all! If it did, then the world monetary system would not thrive on inequality as it does...
Vicky

Originally posted by bogomil
Jesus' own words as in John

5:32 There is another that beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true.
5:33 Ye sent unto John, and he bare witness unto the truth.

Unfortunately the direct followers of John the baptist called Jesus the 'deciever messiah', so either is John lying about what Jesus really said, Jesus lied himself, or the followers of John the baptist are lying.

edit on 29-1-2011 by bogomil because: spelling

Where did you get that idea from? What direct followers of John? I for one have never heard of them...
Vicky

Originally posted by Vicky32
the bit about "you stone an child for being loud mouth"

see Vicky, my take on this is that it is taken by the naysayers without first understanding the metaphor of what a stone represents... after that I think it should be applied to the literal.

what does a stone represent ? how does it make on feel ? what expressions do we and have we used with the word "stone" in it ?

I have not read this part of the Book yet but does it say stone a child to death or something ? or does it just mean treat a loud mouth a certain way and teach them the commandments ?

I'll get around to it I promise

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by Vicky32
the bit about "you stone an child for being loud mouth"

see Vicky, my take on this is that it is taken by the naysayers without first understanding the metaphor of what a stone represents... after that I think it should be applied to the literal.

what does a stone represent ? how does it make on feel ? what expressions do we and have we used with the word "stone" in it ?

I have not read this part of the Book yet but does it say stone a child to death or something ? or does it just mean treat a loud mouth a certain way and teach them the commandments ?

I'll get around to it I promise

As far as I know, he was referring to something in the Old Testament, though I am really not sure... although your view that it's not literal makes sense!
I'd like him to explain exactly what he meant.. I think English is his second language, but. However, we'll see!
Vicky

reply to post by Vicky32

true, I didn't think of the ESL factor...

I believe there are some who look at things too linearly when discussing the Bible texts and meanings, language can have alot to do with it.

Re IAMIAM

Thanks for your response, my friend.

Quote: ["Love God with all your being and your neighbor as yourself."]

Now you're getting stubborn. The 'god'-part is no problem with me, as it's private, and when applied your compassion-way possibly can't be interfering with anyone negatively. I could accept the 'neighbour'-part, if it could be reformulated into something without loopholes.But we've been there already.

Quote: ["What is God to Christ? As a Jewish Rabbi God would be Omnipotent (all powerful), Omnipresent (everywhere), Omnibenevolent (strictly GOOD). Nothing represents God (First two of Moses Ten Commandments). God is Christs Father (Obviously, he created Man, we are all God's children)"]

While the bible ofcourse contains worthwhile elements, I do not acknowledge it as a source of 'truth', especially not on a doctrinal basis with circle-argumentation.

Quote: ["What fits this bill? God is the great unknown from which everything was created."]

Consequently I do not start with a predetermined answer (='this bill') and fit available optional information (bible-'god') so I arrive at to the predetermined answer, which now is 'proved'.

The logical, scientific model is to start from the available information, examine it for 'fact' qualities and from that deduct an answer.

Quote: ["No man can behold God in its entirety for we have only scratched the surface of this existence."]

With the reservation, that 'god' can mean practically anything, I'll momentarily let down my guard on this point and answer: "That's exactly why I don't want any book, doctrine or holy-bubble attitude restrict my approach to a possible ultimate reality".

Quote: [" Look around, everywhere your eyes rest are but a part of the whole that is God."]

I have a little hobbyhorse of mine. The epistemology of cosmogony and cosmology. I can point out several (for me) more attractive 'maps' than the one you presented.

Quote: [" What about those places the eyes cannot go, but only the mind can see? Look within, God is there as well."]

Again, this 'god'-terminology doesn't sit well with me. But yes, there's much to be found on the 'inside'; very much. Unfortunately also the human individual's own confusion, self-righteousness and mental laziness. Before finding any 'god' in there, even more so describe this to the world, we need some heavy inner mental springcleaning.

Quote: [""Oh but you can't prove God exists!" you might say."]

I 'might', but I don't say this. In this context 'burden-of-proof' (one way or another) will be a hindrance for a seeker. I rely on direct, unpolluted experience. Methodologically comparable to e.g. zen.

Quote: [" Look around us at the precision of our existence. There is no randomness."]

Answers on this depends VERY much on perspective. Consider Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (but this direction alone will take us far, far away from topic).

Quote: ["If there was, existence would not be possible."]

Nope, we already live in a universe with two different functional systems: Cosmos and chaos. The outcoming mess is directly associated to this order/non-order basis.

Quote: ["There is no vacuum."]

Chaos is a cosmos-vacuum. To consider this, you must upgrade your reference frame. This YOU do by relating to 'god', an option meaningless to me. And sorry, you can't sell your version to me just on insistence alone.

Quote: ["microcosm is intimately tied to the macrocosm."]

If you can demonstrate that, you'll get a Nobel-prize next time.

Quote: ["I can understand disputing God as some religions have made God out to be, but to denounce the intelligent order of the Universe is arrogance of the highest order, or simply madness."]

I KNOW, that you have a keen intellect, so why do you buy into such christian propaganda cr*p as 'intelligent design'? It's pure bosh.

Quote: ["Love your neighbor."]

No objections in principle, though a few of them have to adapt to the level of loveability, making this possible.

Quote: ["Why? Because we need each other. Every single one of us has something to offer our society. We have spent far too much time judging each other for our differences"]

Agreed, but I can do this just as well from a position of utilitarian philosophy/ethics. We've formerly talked about the nation I live in, with it's small 'god-bothering' elements. In a relative sense, it's closer to the ideals you put up, than any religion-nation is.

Quote: ["God is all powerful, remember. God would not allow something to exist if God did not want it to exist."]

Don't start preaching at me, buddy. That's not how things are between us.

Quote: ["What about the evil in the world?"]

Well, I've been wondering too.

Quote: ["Well man created the evil, and it is up to man to get rid of it. This is the burden of free will."]

I still like you, but I have an utter, well-considered, examined, epistemologized (such a word doesn't exist) and informed CONTEMPT of the 'original sin' doctrine. It's amongst my ten-top stupidities created by mankind for social engineering purposes and/or crutches for existential confusion.

Quote: ["Look around at the world we have created. WE HAVE DONE THIS."]

Cutting to the essense of your free-will specualtions. Yes, this is true. Free will is a double-edged tool. But then there's a the 'god'-adherers' neat little trick of: When something turns out good, it's 'god'; when something goes to heck, it's Satan or misused free will.

Quote: [" What will we replace the old order of things with?"]

Dentistry, soft toilet paper, social support with no bag ladies, egalitarian liberal democracy, global communication, so people slowly come to know each other, morals based on common sense instead of religious doctrine, big motorcycles and mini-skirts.

Quote: ["Will it be an oppressive world Empire which clamps down on us with an iron grip for our own good?"]

HI, hey, IAM, snap out of it. This is your friend Bogo you're talking with, not some NWO fascist. We're both somewhat anarchistic in our relationship to 'authority', so save this for somebody needing it.

Quote: ["I do not know what others see as the logical path to take."]

Lots of patience, lots of non-indoctrinal practical education, access to all wanted knowledge of whatever kind (ideological, rational whatever), no privileged groups, private rights respected (BOTH ways: Freedom TO, and freedom FROM).