Love vs Tyranny

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

All you did was post a link on how scholarship isn't accurate.

Oh I posted a considerable bit more information than that, but besides that point, what did you learn about a growing problem with modern scholarship from that particular link?

reply to post by NOTurTypical

So you're saying it would make no difference to you whether I offered to buy you lunch if you were poor and hungry or If I murdered your wife while you were at work?

Going through the full range of emotions serves no other purpose than to expend the energy created by my disturbance at such an event. Beyond that, anger and sorrow is pointless. It is a coping mechanism. You would have gone out of your way to make negative energy for yourself, which would likely affect the rest of your life - and I would be affected by my reaction to the event, whether that be learning to handle chaos or creating more chaos in response.

I am human. I don't have all the answers. All I know is that our possibilities are only limited by our imaginations, and our experiences are only as bad as what we learn from them. This is called freedom. The freedom to make a choice and learn from the consequences, the freedom to suffer consequences and choose what to learn, the freedom to take what we have learned and apply it, and the freedom to use our imagination to take those lessons to the max - and create any possibility we desire.

Freedom. Tyranny restricts our experiences, but love encourages them. It is better to hurt ourselves and return wiser of ourselves and others, than to never know hate or fear and suffer for such ignorance.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Is that like a yes or a no?

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by adjensen

 

How am I using eisegesis when my conclusion is leading out of the text? He says you must be born again, saying it's anything other than being literally born again is eisegesis, inserting your own meaning into something that is clearly literal.

Your conclusion isn't "leading out of the text", you're bring your existing conclusion to the text and seeing how your conclusion can be explained by what is there, even if what is there has nothing to do with your conclusion. That is eisegesis.

You seem to have some bizarre notion that "critical analysis" means criticizing something, which is not what it means. It means approaching something objectively, and when you take one verse out of context, claim that it is about reincarnation, when in context it clearly has NOTHING to do with reincarnation, could even be read as a refutation of it, in fact, that is not being objective.

Originally posted by windword
Why aren't the Essenes mentioned in the Bible?

Because they were a minority sect who lived out in the desert and had absolutely nothing to do with the story? The Sadducees were substantially large and far more important, and they merited, what, one representation? If someone really had an agenda, the Essenes would make an appearance in the text, painted in a negative light.

There isn't a conspiracy hiding in every corner... some things are ignored simply because they are irrelevant.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
as soon as I voice a possible opinion and ask others to contribute, they shut down. Is there a certain way the game must be played?

What you don't seem to understand is that it isn't a game. You asked a loaded question, didn't like the answers, and now you're complaining that people aren't answering the way that you want them to.

Do you believe "God" is love? Why?

I've never seen a reason to think that he wasn't.

reply to post by adjensen

It means exactly what it says -- to be born again is to be born, not twice in the flesh, as Nicodemus asks, but in the spirit, as Jesus teaches. It is a point that may be taken against reincarnation, though it isn't about it, so it isn't a major point of evidence.

As you probably know, most Biblical scholars agree that Jesus probably didn't have that conversation, as it doesn't translate from the Greek to Aramaic, which scholars agree that Jesus spoke.

It was more likely added later to affirm the reincarnation concepts that Jesus taught.

reply to post by adjensen

What you don't seem to understand is that it isn't a game. You asked a loaded question, didn't like the answers, and now you're complaining that people aren't answering the way that you want them to.

So far, my only complaints have been concerned with the general dissatisfaction regarding the methodology of my question. Two or three different users complained about my asking religious people to expand their imaginations. It's not my problem if they are unable to grasp an idea. Perhaps they should work on being more open-minded.

My question was not loaded. My question was that people provide an opinion on an idea I put forth so that we might be able to discuss difference or similarities between our thought processes. I felt it would be a learning experience. If you feel it was too much, then you are more than welcome to leave. But just remember - if you feel tempted to abandon a thread because it pushes your imagination, maybe that says something about the way you think. If you are never willing to question, you will never find answers.

I've never seen a reason to think that he wasn't.

Did you see the post Windword left a page or two back? Here, I'll link it for you:

reply to post by windword

Take a look at that post. There, you've seen a reason to think he isn't love. That list includes over a dozen items, actually. So you've got a dozen reasons. What is your response now? If I am wrong in my opinion, I want it proven to me. I don't want to walk away with an erroneous idea.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
My question was not loaded.

Your question is on a par with me saying "I don't believe that Santa Claus exists, and he's a complete bastard for not bringing me a Jet Ski last Christmas!"

If you don't believe in God, you also don't believe that he's "love", a tyrant, or anything else.

Take a look at that post. There, you've seen a reason to think he isn't love. That list includes over a dozen items, actually. So you've got a dozen reasons. What is your response now?

I am not a Fundamentalist, so that "list" is utterly meaningless to me.

As I have repeatedly said, if you want to criticize Judaism or Christianity, read the Bible, in full, not just the bits posted on idiot websites like "EvilBible.com" and if you have questions, ask a Rabbi (Hebrew Bible) or Pastor/Priest (New Testament.)

reply to post by adjensen


That's a load of bullocks!

124 No one city is theirs, but they settle amply in each. And for those school-members who arrive from elsewhere, all that the community has is laid out for them in the same way as if they were their own things, and they go in and stay with those they have never even seen before as if they were the most intimate friends.
Josephus
www.biblicalarchaeology.org...

1 Multitudes of his disciples has the lawgiver trained for the life of fellowship. These people are called Essenes, a name awarded to them doubtless in recognition of their holiness. They live in many cities of Judea and in many villages and grouped in great societies of many members.
Pliney
www.thenazareneway.com...

The Essenes were well known and respected in the time of Jesus. The Catholic Church attempted to erase their existence from the scripture because their beliefs did not coincide with their orthodox doctrine.

The followers of John the Baptist were Essenes.

The Manichaeans who derived from the Mandaeans—or Nasoraeans—followers of John the Baptist were called white robes. All took their habit of wearing white from their ultimate founders, the Essenes, who called themselves Lebanon, which means white, because they habitually wore sparklingly white robes of fine linen.
www.thenazareneway.com...

reply to post by adjensen

If you don't believe in God, you also don't believe that he's "love", a tyrant, or anything else.

We're not talking about whether or not one believes in God. We're talking about the god represented in the Judaic/Christian Bible and asking whether or not this god's action show love or tyranny, and the implications of love vs tyranny.

I am not a Fundamentalist, so that "list" is utterly meaningless to me.

You just ignore that portion of Bible?

As I have repeatedly said, if you want to criticize Judaism or Christianity, read the Bible, in full, not just the bits posted on idiot websites like "EvilBible.com" and if you have questions, ask a Rabbi (Hebrew Bible) or Pastor/Priest (New Testament.)

So, basically what you're saying here, is that everybody should just shut up and read the Bible, and take their issues to the "proper" authorities, and keep this nonsense off ATS forums!

Not gonna happen!

reply to post by adjensen

Your question is on a par with me saying "I don't believe that Santa Claus exists, and he's a complete bastard for not bringing me a Jet Ski last Christmas!"

If you don't believe in God, you also don't believe that he's "love", a tyrant, or anything else.

I'm beginning to understand how Christians proliferate so easily. The human mind is an amazing thing - belief becomes reality. In that sense, what is reality, really? Perception? Is that all it is? In which case, why does a deity even matter? Is it simply a device of emotional security?

I suppose my biggest concern here was convincing myself that half the country doesn't worship a tyrant. As I have said before, how can we ever claim true freedom if we spend half our time thanking a tyrant for everything we have?

As I have repeatedly said, if you want to criticize Judaism or Christianity, read the Bible, in full, not just the bits posted on idiot websites like "EvilBible.com" and if you have questions, ask a Rabbi (Hebrew Bible) or Pastor/Priest (New Testament.)

I have. Tyranny and sheepherding has always bored me. Quite frankly, those themes dominated the whole story. It was Game of Thrones for Judaics - overly complicated and no real plot.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
According to my beliefs, there is no such thing as "good" or "evil". These words are more a reflection of who we are than anything else. Every time we define something using one of these words, we instead define ourselves.

In this thread, however, I am playing on Judaic territory. I am stepping on the ground of the Abrahamic faith and asking its followers to defend their ideals. In this way, I am educating myself.

Oh, well I am of Abrahamic faith and my perception is similar to yours. I believe there is a conscious Creator who made the universe, yes this is conscious and omnipresent even to a small place like earth so the Israelites were chosen to be saved from Eygpt, Moses did come down with the stories from Sumeria. Abraham was the father of the Muslims and the father of the Israelites, Jesus was a Jew so Abraham is the father of the Christians, I don't care about the arguements because the evidence is there.

I don't even think the word evil appearred until later in history after the Sumerians at least. Think of why there are so many varying definitions of the word? Most likely because the word doesn't even exist as anything real, it cannot be pinpointed.

I would hesitate to suggest that there is any sort of will to the fabric of reality. There is a direction, certainly...a sort of intent. But does gravity have a will?

Great question, this is why scientists had to come up with the theory of dark matter. They scientically proved that gravity cannot account for all of the motion in the galaxy, yes most of it but not all, so they called the unknown force helping to push things dark matter. Gravity is like evil in that it is another thing that is not understood even by the smartest people.

I think it proves gravity and dark matter does have a will, because when you look at the creation of the solar system and things coming together, our moon appears in place, and the only way for the earth to line up with the sun to have full eclispes is for the solar system (galaxy or universe), to be conscious because the dimensions are perfect and exact.

The nature of energy is the will of the universe. That is the nature of love - it is energy.

I listen to a radio show called Just Energy Radio, I love the intro, check out how they mentioning those things in the first minute. I think it is fascinating that there is so much energy in the galaxy.

And the negative aspect of love, the opposite end of that particular dualist spectrum, is tyranny. Which is why I ask where love ends and tyranny begins. Where does constructive energy end and oppressive energy begin? Where does the sun end and the storm begin?

Now you are becoming very poetic. The dualist spectrum and tyranny aspect would only come from psychology and sexuality. Tyranny begins the minute we are selfish, because love is something the self wants, but the dualistic part is that love in by essence is unselfish. So if they are going up an down like a roller coaster it is because these two forces of selfish desire and true love are causing a fusion and creating energy. So in psychology is when we have the chance to decide where the energy is to go, it if it energy that does not feel good are we going to bottle it, give it to another, or let it out in a positve way. We know it cannot be bottled because it won't stay contained, we know that because of karma we cannot give it to another person, so we will have to think of a way.

What does hate mean to you?

Another good question. You may hear someone say 'hate is a very strong word.' That could not be more delusional and further away from the truth. What they are doing is giving themselves a reason to have hatred in their minds, they are reasoning that since they don't have the degree of hate to what they consider is a powerful intensity their feelings of negative dislike do not equal the word hate. It brings denial and an inability to understand what negative and positive means when it comes to love and hate in that there are different degrees to which one can have the emotions or actions but the words still mean the same thing.

The defintions that I take for love and hate are the second defintions but they are the root of the words - love is to like and hate is to dislike. Those who use the first definition mostly deny the second definition and root of the words because they think it is only extreme or intense, but again they are just fueling their own delusional habit forming of disliking everybody and most everything that comes across them in the day.

reply to post by windword


A community of 4,000 over a centuries long timespan is significant and needs to be referenced in every book written in its time? There is nothing in the Bible to indicate that Jesus is an Essene, which you take to be some sort of conspiracy, when the more obvious explanation is that he wasn't an Essene. He didn't act like one, he didn't live like one, so it isn't likely that he was one. The Essenes of the time never claimed Jesus or John the Baptist, it's all people making suppositions after the fact.

If you're just going to create a fictional account of Christ, then why do you even bother arguing any point from the New Testament? Just make up your own, claim that it's the real thing, and be done with it.

Originally posted by windword

I am not a Fundamentalist, so that "list" is utterly meaningless to me.

You just ignore that portion of Bible?

No, I do not ignore it.

As I have repeatedly said, if you want to criticize Judaism or Christianity, read the Bible, in full, not just the bits posted on idiot websites like "EvilBible.com" and if you have questions, ask a Rabbi (Hebrew Bible) or Pastor/Priest (New Testament.)

So, basically what you're saying here, is that everybody should just shut up and read the Bible, and take their issues to the "proper" authorities, and keep this nonsense off ATS forums!

What I'm saying is that, if you want to be taken seriously, or you want people to believe that you're sincere in your "quest for truth", that you should make at least a modicum of effort to at least appear to be educated in the matters that you're discussing. If you want to argue points in the Bible, then you'd better have read and understood it, or you're just wasting your time as well as others.

It's one thing to not know or understand something and ask questions, quite another to be ignorant and attempt to demonstrate how those who are not ignorant are wrong, simply because their beliefs, grounded in knowledge of the matter at hand, differ from yours, grounded in ignorance of the matter at hand.

reply to post by adjensen

It's one thing to not know or understand something and ask questions, quite another to be ignorant and attempt to demonstrate how those who are not ignorant are wrong, simply because their beliefs, grounded in knowledge of the matter at hand, differ from yours, grounded in ignorance of the matter at hand.

So what are your beliefs? You say you're not a fundamentalist, so enlighten us as to where you stand on the playing field. What perspective or ideals are you speaking from?

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
So what are your beliefs? You say you're not a fundamentalist, so enlighten us as to where you stand on the playing field. What perspective or ideals are you speaking from?

I detailed them out for WildTimes here. Although I thought I had mentioned it in that post, I don't see it, so I'll add that I am a skeptical theist, whose position would be most closely aligned with a Deist "watchmaker" position, were it not for personal experiences that I have had which can best be explained by the existence and behaviour of a deity that is consistent with the Christian God.

Thus, I am a Christian, and a very orthodox, though atypically founded, one.

reply to post by adjensen


Another form of tyranny is the suppression of truth, or of a belief system of people that would otherwise disagree with the tyrant's. Repeating a denial over and over, doesn't make it any less suppressive. It's clear that your intentions of posting in this thread is to suppress, divert and derail the conversation and any and all suggestions of tyrannical god in the Bible.

The truth is that the Catholic Church suppressed the existence, teachings and writings of the Essenes for centuries. They would probably still be in obscurity today, due to their tyranny and suppression of the Catholic Church, if it had not been for the discoveries of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi library of early Christian writings.

I'm just going to leave this quote and then I'm done with you on this topic, as, any more, it is off topic in the current discussion.

Many separate but related religious groups of that era shared similar mystic, eschatological, messianic, and ascetic beliefs. These groups are collectively referred to by various scholars as the "Essenes." Josephus records that Essenes existed in large numbers, and thousands lived throughout Roman Judæa.
en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by AfterInfinity

It's not my problem if they are unable to grasp an idea

That's not reality. You're misrepresenting the objections. My problem was that the premise contains a begging the question fallacy.

reply to post by adjensen

Thus, I am a Christian, and a very orthodox, though atypically founded, one.

Then you are a follower of the Judaic/Abrahamic god. Therefore, my thread applies to you in some form or fashion. Unless, of course, you don't go so far as to claim that your deity represents everything that is good and holy, and can be described as "love" and all that.

Because if that's how you describe your deity, then my thread is wholly intended for you, among others. Be ready to defend your beliefs, because if you don't, then I will walk away either right or unamended.