Understanding the religious mindset

[Immanuel Can]

... it uses "death" in all of these multiple ways.

Yes, I'm familiar with equivocation.

Not "equivocation," of course. Just the full definition of the category.

Entropy takes many forms -- energy drain, aging, decay, corruption, dissolution, disordering, destruction, failure, moral turpitude, social decline, relationship collapse, attrition, error, and erosion among them... All of them ultimately amount to the same end; so "death" is an apt summary of them.

[RCSaunders]

... it uses "death" in all of these multiple ways.

Yes, I'm familiar with equivocation.

Not "equivocation," of course. Just the full definition of the category.

Entropy takes many forms -- energy drain, aging, decay, corruption, dissolution, disordering, destruction, failure, moral turpitude, social decline, relationship collapse, attrition, error, and erosion among them... All of them ultimately amount to the same end; so "death" is an apt summary of them.

Sure. So, "he the liveth and believeth in me shall, "never dissolve," or, "never erode," means the same thing as "never die."

[Immanuel Can]

Sure. So, "he the liveth and believeth in me shall, "never dissolve," or, "never erode," means the same thing as "never die."

Not quite; but you've at least got a sense that "death" is more than just the big swan song at the end. Biblically speaking, it's a pervasive reality -- everything is both dying and will die. It's a process as well as a product.

And actually, that's a fairly routine understanding, if you consider how people talk about death. They use the word as a metaphor for all manner things. Dictionary.com has six definitions, and Webster's Dictionary has eight definitions, just for a start.

So the term "death" is a pretty broad topic: and justly so. It's not equivocation: it's comprehensive understanding.

[Age]

xx

[Age]

From what I have observed, hitherto when this was written, 'you', people/human beings, STILL do NOT YET KNOW what God IS, nor what God wants.

It doesn't appear that anyone gives a crap about your observations of this.

I also note that some are saying that it does appear that NO one gives a crap about what you have observed here ALSO.

You made the CLAIM that the bible is a collection of accounts and stories and imaginings, to tell people what God is and what God wants.

I was just making it KNOWN that NONE of 'you', human beings, at the time you wrote this, have come to KNOW what God is, nor what God wants.

[Age]

Sure. So, "he the liveth and believeth in me shall, "never dissolve," or, "never erode," means the same thing as "never die."

Not quite; but you've at least got a sense that "death" is more than just the big swan song at the end. Biblically speaking, it's a pervasive reality -- everything is both dying and will die. It's a process as well as a product.

So, to "immanuel can" God is dying and WILL DIE, correct?

And actually, that's a fairly routine understanding, if you consider how people talk about death. They use the word as a metaphor for all manner things. Dictionary.com has six definitions, and Webster's Dictionary has eight definitions, just for a start.

So the term "death" is a pretty broad topic: and justly so. It's not equivocation: it's comprehensive understanding.

[Lacewing]

It's too bad you can't respond to me without acting so arrogant,

sez the pot

I was totally nice in my response to you, Henry. I even thanked you.

[Lacewing]

If you know what you mean: post it instead of defaultin' to meaningless or misused words like energy.

I did. Energy is real and measurable.

I'd not seen the following article before just now, but it describes in more detail the kind of energy I'm referring to. I'm sure there are countless articles on the same. This is not NEW information. Is it honestly incomprehensible to you? Do you not see any potential implications of everything being energy which is connected together?

(You may need to scroll to the top of the following article to see it from the beginning... it doesn't start at the top when I open this link.)

https://www.turnerpublishing.com/blog/d ... %20energy.

[Lacewing]

I was just making it KNOWN that NONE of 'you', human beings, at the time you wrote this, have come to KNOW what God is, nor what God wants.

How do you know that?

[Walker]

If you know what you mean: post it instead of defaultin' to meaningless or misused words like energy.

I did. Energy is real and measurable.

I'd not seen the following article before just now, but it describes in more detail the kind of energy I'm referring to. I'm sure there are countless articles on the same. This is not NEW information. Is it honestly incomprehensible to you? Do you not see any potential implications of everything being energy which is connected together?

(You may need to scroll to the top of the following article to see it from the beginning... it doesn't start at the top when I open this link.)

https://www.turnerpublishing.com/blog/d ... %20energy.

Sophistry humour …

Do you know what this link means?

It means that plants are the purest life forms because they take energy directly from the sun.

So, why must plant eaters go against the grain, so to speak, of what it means to be human? Why must plant eaters kill such a purity of design that is so efficient that it directly transmutes energy from the sun into a life span?

Certainly we at least can all agree that because of such economical energy transmission from sun to life, then surely plants must be the purest example of life-form following function. Of course we can.

At least meat eaters are making an ethical attempt to mitigate the carnage unleashed upon this purest of evolutionary life-forms, and this attempt isn’t just with words, but with personal actions, namely, by courageously accepting the true human physical tendency for steak and beer, and refusing to live in denial of Plant Purity.

This is why mankind has developed the capacity for large scale steak and beer consumption, and whenever possible is ethically obligated to honor the purest of life forms, namely Plants, honoring in one of the most conscious, life-giving rituals known to man … eating.

Specifically, eating steak and beer is a primal act that honors plants and at the same time saves at least some of the plants, which are possibly the purest intermediaries connecting energy to life known to man. Meat eaters not only honor plants, they walk the talk.

And what of all that beef? That beef is raised to be eaten and born because of that, whereas the Pure Plants require no human intermediary to profligate amongst mankind, although folks can’t help but meddle into the Plant Kingdom for their own purposes, such as profiteering from feeding the world ... and the beef.

All that Pure Plant life destroyed. What kind of God allows such evolutionary perfection to die for the less evolved life forms?

And so on goes the droll reasoning unless like beauty, droll is only in the eye of the beholder, i.e., both transmitter and receiver are on the same wavelength.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPnEtlheAnQ

[Belinda]

As usual, Immanuel Can confuses the Jesus of history with the supernatural Christ of religion.

Since the primary source of evidence for the historical Jesus seems to suggest that JC was supernatural, then where is the confusion?
It's like saying he's confusing Gandalf with the real Wizard of Middle Earth.

Jesus of history was a Jew who followed and advanced the Judaism of the prophets. Jesus of history was a teacher of Judaism and a great nuisance to the Roman admin who wanted Jews to be docile conquered people. It is entirely possible to worthship and try to follow the ethics of Jesus without also idolising him as God.

But that makes YOU the cherry-picker, not him.

BTW Immanuel thinks God intervenes in history. There is no way we can definitely know that this does not happen. However it is an unsafe presumption, because it leads to tribal petitionary prayers and self -righteousness.

There is a much better answer that makes much more sense.

By "the primary source of evidence" Sculpture refers to The Bible. The Bible is not a primary but a secondary source. Primary sources are unwitting testimony ; but clearly The Bible writers and editors intended to provide devotional material, folk wisdom, mythical stories of heroes, and what passed for true stories of mens' lives. Devotional material includes supernatural beings, and still does so. True, scholars of history and anthropology can detect unwitting testimony from The Bible, such as that Jesus seems to have come from a rural background, and that the social milieu of Biblical Ruth was one where men dominated women.

Whatever Sculpture means by "cherry picker". I do try to follow historical and anthropological interpretations of The Bible in preference to unthinking reverence. I also prefer some parts of The Bible as poetry. The ethics of Jesus are universally applicable and can be separated from history, anthropology, and poetry.

[Age]

I was just making it KNOWN that NONE of 'you', human beings, at the time you wrote this, have come to KNOW what God is, nor what God wants.

How do you know that?

BECAUSE once what God IS is KNOWN, to 'one', then that 'one' evolves passed the human being stage.

It is, after all, ONLY 'you', human beings, who are wondering what God is, and what God wants, right?

[Sculptor]

As usual, Immanuel Can confuses the Jesus of history with the supernatural Christ of religion.

Since the primary source of evidence for the historical Jesus seems to suggest that JC was supernatural, then where is the confusion?
It's like saying he's confusing Gandalf with the real Wizard of Middle Earth.

Jesus of history was a Jew who followed and advanced the Judaism of the prophets. Jesus of history was a teacher of Judaism and a great nuisance to the Roman admin who wanted Jews to be docile conquered people. It is entirely possible to worthship and try to follow the ethics of Jesus without also idolising him as God.

But that makes YOU the cherry-picker, not him.

BTW Immanuel thinks God intervenes in history. There is no way we can definitely know that this does not happen. However it is an unsafe presumption, because it leads to tribal petitionary prayers and self -righteousness.

There is a much better answer that makes much more sense.

By "the primary source of evidence" Sculpture refers to The Bible. The Bible is not a primary but a secondary source. Primary sources are unwitting testimony ; but clearly

Two things here.
1) THis is hair splitting nonsense. The bible is primary in the sense that it is your ONLY soucre with any information about Jesus in it.
2)It contains many things, one of which is wintess accounts.

Your objection is sematic filibustering.

The Bible writers and editors intended to provide devotional material, folk wisdom, mythical stories of heroes, and what passed for true stories of mens' lives. Devotional material includes supernatural beings, and still does so. True, scholars of history and anthropology can detect unwitting testimony from The Bible, such as that Jesus seems to have come from a rural background, and that the social milieu of Biblical Ruth was one where men dominated women.

None of which denied my point. If IC wants to take what he can from it, then you are in no position to criticise him as you are doing the same thing.
If IC is being more literal, then he is not as picky as you are.

Whatever Sculpture means by "cherry picker".

I think you know exactly what I mean.

I do try to follow historical and anthropological interpretations of The Bible in preference to unthinking reverence. I also prefer some parts of The Bible as poetry. The ethics of Jesus are universally applicable and can be separated from history, anthropology, and poetry.

Jesus' ethics are what you make of them when you are cherry picking. One thing is clear that they are by no means universally appliable. Extreme claims are refuted by simple examples to the contrary.
SHould I take a single piece of advice from the lips of jesus that is diagreeable to anyone, or find anyone who disagreed with any thing he said then the claims of universal applicability is dashed.
Hyperbole does not suit you.

[Sculptor]

I love Jesus' Ethics; they are universally applicable..

Here's something that everyone can get behind: Eugneics for everyone.
Mathtew 7
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

It's Burn baby burn for eveyone but the MasterRace, and heave n for the genetically pure.


Yeah like families are so uncool baby


Matthew 10
21 And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death.


Antisemitism anyone?? Or is this simply blaming the children for the actions of their parent. FOr sure this is universally applicable ethics that anyone could be behind. Blame the children for the Prophet killing Jews.

Matthew 23

31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.
32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.
33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?


This is just a small segment of Mattew. I've not got started on Mark Luke and John yet. I can do this all day.

[Lacewing]

I was just making it KNOWN that NONE of 'you', human beings, at the time you wrote this, have come to KNOW what God is, nor what God wants.

How do you know that?

BECAUSE once what God IS is KNOWN, to 'one', then that 'one' evolves passed the human being stage.

It is, after all, ONLY 'you', human beings, who are wondering what God is, and what God wants, right?

I'm not wondering what a god is or what a god wants.

Are you saying that you have evolved past the human being stage?