Welcome to the Philosophy Forums! If you already are a member, please log in. If you are not a member, please join the forums now. It's completely free, and all viewpoints are welcome.
| View previous topic :: View next topic :: |
Homicidal Pacifist
Joined: 19 Jul 2009
Posts: 546
Location: Your mom's house. Ha.
|
Post: #16  Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 2:51 am Post subject: . |
  |
|
|
Thank you Scott; nicely done.
Belinda said, "But what is there to love or not to love about homosexuality?"
Exactly my point. Why does the God of the Bible, which I believe is man-made and warped version of the true God, speak so strongly against homosexuality? What could possibly be the rationale other than bigotry?
You also said, "What has sexual orientation got to do with the God who is love?"
Again, exactly my point. Why would a loving despise a loving relationship that does not hurt anyone and an act that expresses that love just because it's two hairy dudes doing it to each other?
And furthermore, why wouldn't a loving God tell us why it He considers it such a terrible sin worthy of death?
I don't follow blindly and without asking questions. That's how you end up hosting a holocaust.
_________________
"If Ignorance Is Bliss, Then Knock The Smile Off My Face!"
- Rage Against The Machine |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FreeWill
Joined: 19 Sep 2009
Posts: 1
|
| Post: #17 Posted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 8:01 am Post subject: Why does God hate homosexuals? |
|
|
|
He doesn't, we do. He makes no mistakes. His message is a simple one. Love each other. Man fears what he doesn't understand, including all things that are different and are in a minority. This is pure animal instinct.
We are a mix of earth and spirit. Earth being the animal and the spirit being the soul.
Hence the battle between good and evil and heaven and hell.
We are ALL God's connection. We each carry his energy (the soul) within us. When we are told to love God, we are being told to love each other. When we are told to put God above all else, we are being told to take care of each other.
When the animal takes control things go haywire and the soul weakens, that sucks but we were given free will. When you think about it, it's a simple message. We just convoluted the message and veiled it with organized religions that condemn and exclude. Religion is man's creation; we are all God's creation.
There was a dude who got the message about 2,000 years ago. He tried to share it with all he could. In turn we nailed him to a cross and turned him into a religion.
We all serve a higher purpose and in the basic sense, we are all exactly the way we were meant to be. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Belinda
Contributor
Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 3863
|
| Post: #18 Posted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 8:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
I believe that all men and women have homosexual tendencies.
This really is no big deal. What matters is responsible attitudes to sex and relationships. Don't hurt people. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Homicidal Pacifist
Joined: 19 Jul 2009
Posts: 546
Location: Your mom's house. Ha.
|
| Post: #19 Posted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 2:33 am Post subject: . |
|
|
|
O Tavern said (in a different topic), "By the way, this is one reason I am against homosexuality: because it is a manifestation of a misplaced "lust," where individuals have given up their very identity to a lesser good. Even gays admit this because they see themselves as identified with their desire. They are "gay," they see themselves as being defined by their preference. They have abdicated being for "an act" and identify themselves fully with that act. It is a distortion of the very identity of a "person" because they have mistakenly placed the source of their identity in their behaviour."
So you are not straight? You are not a heterosexual? You just have heterosexual sex? It's a play on words.
The reason that gayness is a sin has not been explained directly or indirectly by the Bible. And by the way, you cannot say that all gay relationships are built on "misplaced" lust and not genuine love.
So you think it's wrong morally according to your religoun. Remember that freedom of religoun covers all religouns and the absence of religoun so long as no one gets hurt.
So, do you think that gay couples should not be allowed to marry or receive the same rights as married couples by being joined together in a cival union?
Be aware that I'm about to call you a facist and a bigot.
_________________
"If Ignorance Is Bliss, Then Knock The Smile Off My Face!"
- Rage Against The Machine |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OTavern
Joined: 27 Jan 2008
Posts: 414
|
| Post: #20 Posted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 9:18 pm Post subject: Re: . |
|
|
|
| Homicidal Pacifist wrote: |
So you are not straight? You are not a heterosexual? You just have heterosexual sex? It's a play on words. |
No, I have never referred to myself as heterosexual because that is not what I am, I am a human being, a person. I do not identify myself with things that I do, because things that I do come from what I am, not vice versa. I do not define myself by an act that I carry out, but on the "state" of my being. I am what I am, I do what I do, but I am not what I do.
The only reason for calling oneself heterosexual is in distinction from homosexual - no other reason. Since homosexual is a category error, both terms are unwarranted. The only reason someone would insist on either is because they are defining themselves by a specific type of activity that they identify themselves with. The only reason I can see for that is a loss of real identity as person.
| Homicidal Pacifist wrote: |
| Be aware that I'm about to call you a facist and a bigot.[/b] |
That seems to be an appropriate response from someone who is trying to coerce assent from another party. Name-calling, innuendo and intimidation are very much fascist [yes, this is the correct spelling] and "bigot" traits. Your "threat" seems to stem from the fact that you have reached a state of intellectual bankruptcy and have to resort to this less than tasteful maneuver to persuade me of what you say. That only makes me less likely to believe you have anything meaningful to add to the discussion.
It seems to me that if you really believed yourself to be in possession of "truth" on an issue, a calmer, more assured position would be appropriate. Calmly present or dispute the position on merits of logic and ethics, not barbaric threats and verbal attack. On the other hand, perhaps we shouldn't expect more from someone whose first name is "Homicidal." What was your mother thinking?
This is also another reason I think the "gay" movement is deluded. Many cry for "tolerance" but are very intolerant of anyone who disagrees. Name-calling (homophobia, intolerance, bigotry, etc.) and vitriolic attacks on dissenters rather than reasonable discussion about the issues are about the only tactics relied upon by "gays" to force their case. This kind of defensiveness makes me wonder if they themselves really believe what they are promoting.
The strategy to promote "gay pride" seems to be to make the whole issue so emotionally loaded that it entices a guilt-ridden emotionally explosive response from opponents. That seems to have been your tact, as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
boagie
Joined: 13 Oct 2008
Posts: 663
|
| Post: #21 Posted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 9:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
I believe the thinking follows form and function, homosexuality is thought unnatural as indeed it is, it is an aberration, a rather consistent one, so you might say it is a natural aberration. It is quite natural I believe for straight people to find it disgusting, indeed gay people I am told find heterosexual sex disgusting. Sex is rather mindless, whether it is heterosexual or homosexual it is not an intellectual discision, if sex cannot find normal expression in will find other ways to express itself, it is stronger and more persistent than the intellect, I think unrelenting is the term I am looking for----------lol!!
Last edited by boagie on Wed Sep 23, 2009 12:33 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Homicidal Pacifist
Joined: 19 Jul 2009
Posts: 546
Location: Your mom's house. Ha.
|
| Post: #22 Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 2:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
O Tavern -
I believe it's YOUR book that says, "So a man thinks, so he is." I think it's fair to equate "thinks" with "acts" in this instance.
So you are not a Christian? You are a human who believes in Christianity? I am not athletic? I am a human who engages in athletic activities? So be it. IT'S A PLAY ON WORDS.
I get what you're saying but the difference, if there is one, is not worth noting too hard and definately is not a cause for demeaning humans that engage in homosexual intercourse.
I'm tolerant in the sense that I will allow you to hold your unfair and prejudiced belief, but I will not accept that you deprive these people of their rights. Just like I would not allow them to deprive you of your rights to express your love. We should NOT be tolerant of ALL things.
Sorry for the verbal lashings and threats of name-calling, but dammit you make me mad. I was trying to illustrate my feeling that your attitude is not unlike the bigotry of racism and sexism which chooses to hate, degrade, and deprive over such trivial qualities and create an unnecessary and hostile seperation between so many forms of otherwise good people rather than embracing diversity while holding on to individuality.
_________________
"If Ignorance Is Bliss, Then Knock The Smile Off My Face!"
- Rage Against The Machine
Last edited by Homicidal Pacifist on Wed Sep 23, 2009 1:31 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ape
Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 3324
|
| Post: #23 Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 10:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Homicidal Pacifist wrote: |
O Tavern -
I believe it's YOUR book that says, "So a man thinks, so he is." I think it's fair to equate "thinks" with "acts" in this instance.
|
Hi HP!
The philosophical emphasis is on 'as' and 'so,' but it still also means that we are all we think since all those words by which we think are stored IN us AS us, and all our brains and all in our brains is us and belongs to us. So 'thinks' does cover all speech and all acts and reactions.
And so we can say:
As in Love or as in Hate a man thinks and feels and speaks and acts, not only so in Love or so Love or so in Hate or so Hate is he, but also what he is thinking and feeling and speaking and acting is he, and also he is who and what he thinks he is and feels he is and says he is and acts he is.
It works like Spell-Check: it takes one to know one.
So it wd be most self-defeating for God to hate gays since, as per Genesis 1:26, God himself is both female and male, is both gay and straight, is all pairs of opposites in him, which is why both man and woman are made not only in his image but also in his LIKEness or in his LOVENESS, and is why we hate God if we hate any gays or any straights or any type of person as per Matthew 25:35-45 and 1 John 4:20.
Btw:
When last have you seen RETURN OF THE JEDI? Woda told Luke Darth Vader was his dad who was still alive, and Obi wan Kenobi told Luke his dad had been killed and was dead. Both statements were true based on the play on the words 'killed' and 'dead.' |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OTavern
Joined: 27 Jan 2008
Posts: 414
|
| Post: #24 Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 12:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Homicidal Pacifist wrote: |
O Tavern -
I believe it's YOUR book that says, "So a man thinks, so he is." I think it's fair to equate "thinks" with "acts" in this instance.
So you are not a Christian? You are a human who believes in Christianity? I am not athletic? I am a human who engages in athletic activities? So be it. IT'S A PLAY ON WORDS.
I get what you're saying but the difference, if there is one, is not worth noting too hard and definately is not a cause for demeaning humans that engage in homosexual intercourse.
I'm tolerant in the sense that I will allow you to hold your unfair and prejudiced belief, but I will not accept that you deprive these people of their rights. Just like I would not allow them to deprive you of your rights to express your love. We should be tolerant of ALL things.
Sorry for the verbal lashings and threats of name-calling, but dammit you make me mad. I was trying to illustrate my feeling that your attitude is not unlike the bigotry of racism and sexism which chooses to hate, degrade, and deprive over such trivial qualities and create an unnecessary and hostile seperation between so many forms of otherwise good people rather than embracing diversity while holding on to individuality. |
Again that is where you are incorrect and your error stems from the fact that you see identity tied to activity. I don't. I can disagree with someone about the rightness or wrongness of certain acts without thereby being committed to treat the other party with hate, degradation or as deprave.
When I make a mistake, if I believe my very identity is based upon my action, then I might engage in self-recrimination and see myself as a "fool" or an oaf. However, if I see my identity and therefore my value as independent of my actions then there is "room for change." My value or devalue is not in my mistakes or successes, it is in my "being."
I can believe that homosexuality is wrong behaviour because it is ultimately detrimental to the party themself, without thereby being committed to believing the individual who acts this way is worthy of hatred or disrespect. Again, my position is that an individual is not defined by their actions. I may believe that certain actions are detrimental to that individual and to society in general, but I can still believe that the person, themself is worthy of respect and dignity - I just don't believe their behaviour is ultimately good for them or others around them. In fact, the very reason I am concerned about their behaviour may be because I believe it is detrimental to them as persons. If I didn't care I wouldn't be concerned about their behaviour.
Example: If someone I know gets involved with addictive drugs, out of concern I would be driven to do everything I could to "convince" them of their error. The fact that I disagree with their behaviour does not commit me to believing them depraved or unworthy of my concern. Their behaviour may be precisely what causes me to act out of concern.
Ditto with homosexual behaviour. Someone may believe it is their choice and their "life," but if my honest point of view is that it is harmful to them as an individual, my very concern would drive me to express that disagreement. My disagreement with them does not mean I am entitled to demean them or foment disrespect toward them. On the other hand, because they believe their behaviour is acceptable does not give them the right to demean my opinion or my moral position. They have no right to call my position "homophobic" for the very reason that I do not have a right to demean them. We disagree about the rightness of a behaviour. It is a behaviour after all and not the definitive basis of their identity. The red herring in this debate is precisely the fact that those who see themselves as "homosexual" have come to define their identity by their behaviour. I don't believe that to be the case. The benefit of their behaviour to themselves and to society in general is still up to debate because it is a behaviour like any other. Some want to fix that behaviour upon some kind of unassailable moral bastion by tying it to identity and personal worth. I just disagree with that perspective for the simple reason that action or behaviour does not define identity.
Last edited by OTavern on Wed Sep 23, 2009 12:48 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OTavern
Joined: 27 Jan 2008
Posts: 414
|
| Post: #25 Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 12:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| whitetrshsoldier wrote: |
| Romans 1:24-32 wrote: |
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
|
It seems to me [but of course I'm just an ignant person who "reads" the bible as "words" with "meaning"] that not only gays, but also those who approve of homosexuality, "deserve death". And that those who practice same-sex 'fornication' will find in themselves "due penalty for their perversion".
You're right guys, "god" doesn't 'hate' homosexuality.
He just says that those who practice it will find in themselves "due penalty" and that they and their supporters "deserve death".
That's not hatred. More accurate terms that might describe his depictions of same-sex relationships might be intolerance, prejudice, disapproval, contempt, irascibility, resentment, and indignation. Are those more accurate descriptions of "gods" feelings towards homosexuality?
|
I think this is a good time to answer the above little piece. I believe what Paul is getting at is that anyone who "turns over" their identity and being to lust or addiction thereby gives over control of their very being to that lust or addiction. They "lose themselves" to it. What he means by "due penalty" is precisely the state of having lost their very identity to that lust or addiction as a kind of "natural consequence."
I am going to repeat what I posted in another forum to relate the above point to what Paul might have had in mind.
| Quote: |
Evil is a "disorder" of mind/spirit and matter. One form of evil is when spirit becomes subordinate or "controlled" by matter, it becomes "unfree" or as Paul says, "enslaved." As Jesus said, "A man who sins is a slave to sin." It is a losing of your true "identity" to a lesser form of being - becoming less than you are. Jesus said, "What does it profit a man to gain the entire world but lose his very self?" It is not a Christian notion that matter is "morally" inferior. It is a Christian notion that spirit should not be subordinate to or "enslaved" to matter, but not because matter is "evil." "Spirit" is "living" and "forms" the soul in humankind, it is disordered to have spirit formed by matter. This is why our "freedom" is integral to our identity.
(By the way, this is one reason I am against homosexuality: because it is a manifestation of a misplaced "lust," where individuals have given up their very identity to a lesser good. Even gays admit this because they see themselves as identified with their desire. They are "gay," they see themselves as being defined by their preference. They have abdicated being for "an act" and identify themselves fully with that act. It is a distortion of the very identity of a "person" because they have mistakenly placed the source of their identity in their behaviour. Another hint to this "state" is the fact that, like HP, there is a conception that it "can't be helped" it is just the way "they" are. A related point here is that HP is dead wrong about celibacy because we are not intended to be "slaves" to sex either, but fully in control. Celibacy if it results from healthy spirituality is an example of spiritual control over our physical natures - of the right order of spirit over matter, not matter over spirit. )
Matter, of itself is good, what is not good is that a "higher form of being" (mind, free will, spirit) turns itself over to and becomes controlled by merely physical processes. Addiction is another example.
I just read an article this afternoon - an interview with Gene Heyman a Harvard psychologist who has done a great deal of research on the nature of addiction and has theorized that addiction can be "voluntary" at the beginning, but gradually involves a "narrowing" of perspective from decision making based upon long term benefit to short term, immediate gratification, which then becomes the controlling force in one's life. Research is finding that addictions (alcohol in particular) can be overcome by "widening perspective." (Cf http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/HEYNAT.html
All sins from greed, lust, jealousy, covetousness, etc. fit this paradigm of abdicating freedom for the sake of a lesser good. This, too, was the sin of Adam, giving up "Life in God" for something less - the taste of a lesser good. The nature of agape love - is love fully and "freely" given - and only possible for an individual who is fully free and not "controlled" by external factors. A person cannot "love" because of compulsion or overwhelming desire. Love is a "free choice" and exercising that free choice can only happen when one is "free" to do so. |
Perhaps one of the reasons Christians are concerned about homosexuality is precisely the fact that we see human beings losing their freedom and identity and trading it for a condition of enslavement. They have become their behaviour and cannot separate themselves from it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Simon says...
Joined: 10 Jul 2009
Posts: 627
|
| Post: #26 Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 10:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
You talk of losing freedom and enslavement and yet you have no idea what that really means. Slavery is a form of forced labor in which people are considered to be, or treated as, the property of others. This life is full of laybor, we work damn hard merely to stay alive. I did not choose to be born into this life, I had this life forced upon me. If I choose to end my life out of my own free will, I am "by the rules" a supporter of death. By dint of being a supporter of death I am abandoned by god and he leaves me to burn in hell. Saying that, "god does not cast you into hell" does not change the fact that his actions (creating me, giving me free will and then not saving me when I actually use the thing) cause me to go there, hence he is CAUSING my damnation. I did not ask for free will out of free will for that is a contradiction, anything I do out of free will is a direct result of him giving me free will. He didn't have to and I never asked him to. He did it against my free will. Nor am I even aloud to use my free will for fear of damnation. And most important god claims ownership over my very being for he wants to claim my soul when I go to heaven. He created me, thus creating my genetic nature, he put in a place without asking me thus creating my nurture also, and didn't ask me whether or not I wanted free will because I didn't have any to ask. I call that slavery.
Freedom is the right to act according to ones will without being held up by the power of others. I would like to be able to believe in the non existence of god, have safe consentual sex with the people I wish, when I wish and in what way. Have the freedom to not go to church every sunday, to not be baptised, to not eat the bread and wine provided, to not need to tell all my secrets to some guy whom I hardly know and to be free from his "advice", advice coming from someone who knows nothing about violence, sex and law but has read all he thinks he knows from a book written thousands of years ago...and most importantly would like the freedom to do all this and yet to be aloud freedom from the heaven and hell issue, and to simply be aloud to die, to let my existence merely perish and have no awareness of anyone or anything once I die. Or at least to be given another "human" life here on earth even if that means my memories being wiped and my personality changed. I would like that kind of freedom.
Can I get it? Not in the christian way of teach I can't. So really, I am not allowed to choose how I enter this world, I am not allowed to choose how I leave it, and I am not allowed to choose what happens to me once I have died. Freedom? You don't have the faintest idea of what that means!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ape
Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 3324
|
| Post: #27 Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 8:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
To Whom It May Concern:
To be totally free is to be so free that we are unable to be any more free.
To be totally enslaved is to be unable to any more free.
Thus, to be free and to be enslaved is the same thing.
To be the complete and sole master of myself means I am my first complete and sole slave.
Thus with unconditional Love for self as both free and enslaved, I am the Lord and Master of the Universe while serving an everlasting enslaving life-sentence in a dungeon, and I am doubly infinitley free when free!
Thus real liberty is an inside-of-the-mind thing: the Liberty of Love for self as all and for all as self.
Thus, the real enslavement is the mental slavery of Hate for enslavement: The Slavery to Hate for self as any and for any as self. In Hate of myself as a slave, I can't rule nor master nor take orders from myself, I am a hypocrite when I try to rule or teach others, I make a prison of my freedom, and am doubly-imprisoned when enslaved by myself and/or others.
Qed.
Hamlet[II, 2]
Hamlet:
"O God, I could be bounded in a nutshell and count myself a king of infinite space (when I love myself as bound and unbound)." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OTavern
Joined: 27 Jan 2008
Posts: 414
|
| Post: #28 Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 8:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Simon says... wrote: |
You talk of losing freedom and enslavement and yet you have no idea what that really means. Slavery is a form of forced labor in which people are considered to be, or treated as, the property of others. This life is full of laybor, we work damn hard merely to stay alive. I did not choose to be born into this life, I had this life forced upon me. If I choose to end my life out of my own free will, I am "by the rules" a supporter of death. By dint of being a supporter of death I am abandoned by god and he leaves me to burn in hell. Saying that, "god does not cast you into hell" does not change the fact that his actions (creating me, giving me free will and then not saving me when I actually use the thing) cause me to go there, hence he is CAUSING my damnation. I did not ask for free will out of free will for that is a contradiction, anything I do out of free will is a direct result of him giving me free will. He didn't have to and I never asked him to. He did it against my free will. Nor am I even aloud to use my free will for fear of damnation. And most important god claims ownership over my very being for he wants to claim my soul when I go to heaven. He created me, thus creating my genetic nature, he put in a place without asking me thus creating my nurture also, and didn't ask me whether or not I wanted free will because I didn't have any to ask. I call that slavery.
Freedom is the right to act according to ones will without being held up by the power of others. I would like to be able to believe in the non existence of god, have safe consentual sex with the people I wish, when I wish and in what way. Have the freedom to not go to church every sunday, to not be baptised, to not eat the bread and wine provided, to not need to tell all my secrets to some guy whom I hardly know and to be free from his "advice", advice coming from someone who knows nothing about violence, sex and law but has read all he thinks he knows from a book written thousands of years ago...and most importantly would like the freedom to do all this and yet to be aloud freedom from the heaven and hell issue, and to simply be aloud to die, to let my existence merely perish and have no awareness of anyone or anything once I die. Or at least to be given another "human" life here on earth even if that means my memories being wiped and my personality changed. I would like that kind of freedom.
Can I get it? Not in the christian way of teach I can't. So really, I am not allowed to choose how I enter this world, I am not allowed to choose how I leave it, and I am not allowed to choose what happens to me once I have died. Freedom? You don't have the faintest idea of what that means!!! |
Perhaps it may mean being free from the kind of resentment you seem to be carrying. Perhaps it means to be free of such a limited "world view" as you seem to have that imprisons your understanding in a tiny container called "the way I see it." Perhaps it means to be free to see the infinite possibilities that an Infinite Being may have in store for you instead of the finite restrictions your limited mind can conjure.
Perhaps it is the freedom to rise above a temporal view of existence and see life from a clearer, less self-absorbed perspective. Perhaps it means freedom from the limitations of "self" and the emotional baggage that weighs down on it.
I don't know about your concept of "freedom" but I know that my own pride and self-love is a larger impediment to my freedom than anything else in my world and I do know that God is continually working on helping me overcome those encumbrances. My attitude is one of thankfulness for the gift rather than resentment that the gift isn't the exact one that I demand.
It occurs to me that an infinitely loving, all-knowing and all-powerful Being can create a much better "world" for me than I in my limited, self-centered perspective can ever dream of. I am willing to put up with a little virtue "training" to prepare to bear the responsibility of those possibilities. If He is prepared to give "eternal life" to me, I certainly desire to allow myself to be formed to be able to deal with those infinite possibilities. I do not see the point in rebuffing the gift simply because in my present limited perspective I think I know better than God what is good for me. That seems to be showing an unwarranted audacity, given that I have no idea of God's complete plan. In fact, it is clear that I do not have the capacity to understand that complete plan. How can I be in a position to criticize when I am totally incompetent to understand it?
Have you ever read Lewis' "The Great Divorce?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OTavern
Joined: 27 Jan 2008
Posts: 414
|
| Post: #29 Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 8:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Ape made a very important point in another Forum that relates to your angered post above, Simon. It was this:
| ape wrote: |
But here is an addition amplificatory power to that view that makes it clearer:
I thank God first for myself since without me there wd be no him, and then I thank God for him since without him there wd be no me!
So altho God's existence as Outer Reality in Outer Reality is independent of me, without my Inner Reality and me, there wd be no Him--to me! This is why in a way I am more important than God and all in Outer Reality since it takes me to understand him--with his help re. Love of myself as him and so love of him as myself, of course! |
So Simon, God made YOU to experience HIM fully. Without you, you could not possibly have the experience of Infinite Being or Eternal Life that God has in store for YOU. YOU (your very SELF) are HIS instrument for revealing INFINITE BEING to YOU. However, He must do some "fine tuning" on you (and on all of us) to allow you (us) to be able to experience that fullness.
The question remains, "Are you sure you want to trade infinite possibilities and "freedom" for your paltry present "treasures" or self-conceived wants when infinite possibilities lie ahead? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
whitetrshsoldier
Contributor
Joined: 11 Mar 2009
Posts: 1676
Location: San Diego, CA
|
| Post: #30 Posted: Tue Sep 29, 2009 11:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| OTavern wrote: |
| I don't know about your concept of "freedom" but I know that my own pride and self-love is a larger impediment to my freedom than anything else in my world and I do know that God is continually working on helping me overcome those encumbrances. My attitude is one of thankfulness for the gift rather than resentment that the gift isn't the exact one that I demand. |
And who created you with "pride" and "self-love"? "God", right? Thank "GOD" for this "impediment of your freedom", huh?.
I think your criticism of Simon is a little premature.
_________________
"I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings! I'm obviously just insecure with the ineptitudes of my logic and rational faculties. Forgive me - I'm a "lost soul", blinded by my "ignorant belief" that there's such a thing as reality and truth in the world" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
