Posted on 08/01/2011 3:29:32 PM PDT by cakid1
Ha ha, keep babbling.
Ping me when you have something to say about the time paradox.
This is yet more of that peculiar atheist tendency to rave incessantly about things which they say do not even exist.
That is not the golden rule.(rather that is not Christian). If that were the rule, why would you ever be a philanthropist? IOW, "Do no harm" is not the same as "Do good".
The Golden Rule is older than Christianity.
Zi Gong asked, saying, “Is there one word that may serve as a rule of practice for all one’s life?” The Master said, “Is not RECIPROCITY such a word?” – Confucius
“Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself.” – Confucius
“If people regarded other people’s families in the same way that they regard their own, who then would incite their own family to attack that of another? For one would do for others as one would do for oneself.” – Mozi
“The sage has no interest of his own, but takes the interests of the people as his own. He is kind to the kind; he is also kind to the unkind: for Virtue is kind. He is faithful to the faithful; he is also faithful to the unfaithful: for Virtue is faithful.” – Laozi
“Regard your neighbor’s gain as your own gain, and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss.” – Laozi
“For those who set their hearts on me
And worship me with unfailing devotion and faith,
The way of love leads sure and swift to me.
Those who seek the transcendental Reality,
Unmanifested, without name or form,
Beyond the reach of feeling and of thought,
With their senses subdued and mind serene
And striving for the good of all beings,
They too will verily come unto me.”
— Bhagavad-Gita, Chapter XII.
Pretty cool.
Wish I could’ve thought of that out of my OWN mind...
LOL, you demanded proof for the non-existence of God, and when presented with the time paradox as a reply, you moan and raise a hissy-fit about why the answer was provided, instead of arguing about the paradox.
As I said earlier, nothing sensible can come from you, and you persist in proving me right!
Thanks, but what were you referring to?
Well, I did point out "(rather that is not Christian)." for a reason. Your statement requires inaction. The Christian, "Do unto others...", requires action.
Mat 25:33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
Mat 25:34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
Mat 25:35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
Mat 25:36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
Mat 25:37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed [thee]? or thirsty, and gave [thee] drink?
Mat 25:38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took [thee] in? or naked, and clothed [thee]?
Mat 25:39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
Mat 25:40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done [it] unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done [it] unto me.
Mat 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
Mat 25:42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
Mat 25:43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
Mat 25:44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
Mat 25:45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did [it] not to one of the least of these, ye did [it] not to me.
Mat 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal
... also requires action.
Well, okay. So either the Hebrews read the "Bhagavad Gita" or the Hindus read the "Torah". In any case, the quotation seems to be a tepid addition rather than a fundamental requirement.
Now we are arguing about degrees?
Coerced kindness is no real kindness. Giving charity to avoid pain (lakes of fire) cannot be true charity.
No. I was commenting on the statement you posted. And it was out of context. Here is the statement translated and in context.
|
It looks as if no action other than thinking about it is required.
Coerced kindness is no real kindness.
It is not coerced. You are not a Christian(apparently) and do not understand, sin, forgiveness, and being a light to the world.
You cannot be dedicated to the welfare of all beings by merely thinking. Arguing about what it looks like or not is pointless.
Anyway, from your own quotation earlier:
Mat 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
‘These’ refer to those who didn’t help.
This clearly indicates that the punishment for not helping is to be cast into the “lakes of fire”.
Without doubt, this is coerced.
Coerced kindness, as said earlier, is no real kindness. You are doing it in exchange for a bigger benefit, and not out of any real feeling for the need to help. Robotic, and mechanical.
So tell me, if I could answer this to your satisfaction, would this be the thing that finally has you say “Yes God exists?”
I believe from your general conversation it would be impossible to answer everything to your satisfaction. As I do not have the answers to everything, you could just sit back and say because I can’t answer everything to YOUR satisfaction, you will use that as a stick to continue to beat up on others, and allow yourself to believe there is no God.
These are arguments from atheists to point to the other side and say “See, because they don’t have all the answers in a way I can accept them, therefore none of what they are saying ought to be believed”, it’s just your way to cement yourself in to oppoosing anything you don’t want to have to consider. If we do come up with answers they are inadequate, flawed, or you simply keep asking more and more questions until we can’t answer something well enough for you, and we’re back to you having your reason to reject all of it.
What I do know is that even if I could answer this question to the degree you’d demand - because I know if I did offer an answer, all you’d do is come back with additional questions - you’d either move on to other questions or dismiss my answers for failing some kind of internal test you have so that you could keep on not having to believe in a God.
You’re not asking these questions to give yourself reasons to believe in God. You are asking them so that you can continue not to have to believe in God. Either be honest about that or I’m just wasting my time with another person who just wants to waste my time.
The root cause of war is usually envy, not religion. From an evolutionary perspective, the purpose of religion is it provides a winning advantage in tribal warfare. The first tribe that discovered religion was so successful their descendants conquered the entire planet and killed off all nonreligious competitors such as the Neanderthals.
Envy is also the root cause of leftism. Theft, destruction, murder, war, and voting Democrat are all driven by the same evil.
The root cause of envy is vanity. So all is vanity.
The time paradox is extremely simple. Address that, because it is a serious fundamental problem with any entity that is both outside time, and performs acts that need to occur in sequence.
You are wasting your time and mine, if you persist in pretending that you do not recognise the paradox. All I see from your refusal to acknowledge what you can clearly see in the paradox is blind superstition which has perhaps defined your entire life until now, and you do not wish to disturb it. Otherwise, you would have no problem in addressing the paradox. This is not to your satisfaction or mine, but to the satisfaction of reason - how is it possible to maintain a sequence outside time? Answer this, and you would have made a start. Anything else is really nothing but mere avoidance and fear of losing faith in dogma.
Envy breeds hatred and violence. Religion does that too. Both sustain a perpetual cycle of violence.
Religion is also one's way of feeling superior to another, again breeding vanity. Self-righteousness, to be more specific. So powerful are these forces, they work to self-sustain each other perpetually. When the proponents of a particular faith attains monopoly, the very mechanism of self-righteous hatred causes that monopoly to splinter and further propagate vain pride. This is the reason why religions split into sects, each claiming a higher moral ground than the other. Sects further break into sub-sects, and so on.
This is undeniable truth.
|
"Religion shown in act of proud display
|
|
To win good entertainment, worship, fame,
|
|
Such—say I—is of Rajas, rash and vain.
|
|
|
|
Religion followed by a witless will
|
|
To torture self, or come at power to hurt
|
|
Another,—’tis of Tamas, dark and ill.
|
|
|
|
The gift lovingly given, when one shall say
|
|
“Now must I gladly give!” when he who takes
|
|
Can render nothing back; made in due place,
|
|
Due time, and to a meet recipient,
|
|
Is gift of Sattwan, fair and profitable.
|
|
|
|
The gift selfishly given, where to receive
|
|
Is hoped again, or when some end is sought,
|
|
Or where the gift is proffered with a grudge,
|
|
This is of Rajas, stained with impulse, ill.
|
|
|
|
The gift churlishly flung, at evil time,
|
|
In wrongful place, to base recipient,
|
|
Made in disdain or harsh unkindliness,
|
|
Is gift of Tamas, dark; it doth not bless!"
Bhagavad-Gita, Ch: XVII, Lines 69-87. |
Thanks!
I’m open to hearing how you would explain it, seeing that you say it’s extrement simple.
Why don’t you try to argue FOR the existence of God and try to solve your own question? Really test your intellect for a change.
All I can tell you is that the restrictions that matter puts on us in the universe (we are at specific points in time, and space, and therefore things happe sequentially), God being the Creator of time and space, and being able to exist outside of time and space, is not bound by the limits in the way we are. I am not going to lose one second of sleep because I can’t somehow answer your question to your satisfaction. I am convinced that even if I could, you would with absolute certainty reject it for one reason or another, or just come back with another question you’ve already got ready to go.
Been nice talking with ya.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.