|
Imagine
May 24, 2011 5:02:49 GMT 10
Post by rareearth on May 24, 2011 5:02:49 GMT 10
"Imagine, sang John Lennon, a world with no religion. Imagine no suicide bombers, no 9/11, no 7/7, no Crusades, no witch-hunts, no Gunpowder Plot, no Kashmir dispute, no Indo/Pakistan partition, no Israel/Palestine wars, no Serb/Croat/Muslim massacres, no Northern Ireland 'troubles'. Imagine no Taliban blowing up ancient statues, lashing women for showing an inch of skin, or publicly beheading blasphemers and apostates. Imagine no persecutions of the Jews — no Jews to persecute indeed, for without religion they would long ago have intermarried with the surrounding populations." (Richard Dawkins, source) There isn't a problem, in itself, with Dawkins' words above. However, the lyrics of the song "Imagine", Lennon's "most famous post-Beatles' track", were not intended to offend religious groups. According to the Wikipedia, Lennon's explanation was, "If you can imagine a world at peace, with no denominations of religion — not without religion, but without this 'my God is bigger than your God' thing — then it can be true." So Dawkins is trying to use Lennon's lyrics for his own ends. I say, imagine a world without FALSE religion, false religion like the example below. That too can be true! Doomsday prophet, followers 'flabbergasted' world didn't endendofworld.u.cc
|
|
|
Imagine
May 25, 2011 2:55:08 GMT 10
Post by sogoln on May 25, 2011 2:55:08 GMT 10
Israel/Palestine wars is not a religion war, it's a colonial one.
Religion here is just a false pretext, an excuse to preclude real peace talks between parties.
|
|
|
Imagine
May 25, 2011 3:50:52 GMT 10
Post by rareearth on May 25, 2011 3:50:52 GMT 10
Israel/Palestine wars is not a religion war, it's a colonial one. Religion here is just a false pretext, an excuse to preclude real peace talks between parties. Further quoting Richard Dawkins article: "Of course today's religious killings and persecutions are not motivated by theological disputes. IRA gunmen don't kill Protestants (or vice versa) over disagreements about transubstantiation. The motive is more likely to be tribal vengeance. It was one of 'them' killed one of 'us'. 'They' drove 'our' great grandfathers out of our ancestral lands. The grievances are economic and political, not religious, and the vendettas stretch back a long way." So to be fair, Richard Dawkins does mention some of that, but it is still true that religion gets too much blame today in situations where killings and persecutions are not motivated by theological disputes at all. I believe that at least true religion can actually promote peace, and in fact the word 'religion' itself may come from the Latin ligare "to bind, connect", probably in a prefixed re-ligare form — i.e. re (again) + ligare — that literally means "to reconnect", an etymology which was made prominent by St. Augustine. In fact, the Jews used religion to bind people together so much, that Judaism does not distinguish clearly between religious, national, racial, or ethnic identities. Perhaps even the meaning "obligation, the bond between man and the gods" for religion is valid. One should note that the Sanskrit word dharma, sometimes translated as 'religion', also means 'law', and Buddhists often use the word dharma in the same way. Moreover, one should note that the Cesidian XIV Commandments are not really laws for men, but laws for Gods, including those miniature Gods in human form. Cesidianism is thus not the religion that simply attempted to constitute a primitive, often one-sided bond between God and man, but the religion that might actually 'level the playing field' between the Gods in various forms. For a Cesidian, the bond between religion and law is a natural one, and atheists are not so much viewed as disrespectful to some heavenly or distant Creator, as they are viewed subhuman, since the bond between human and divine is also equally strong.
|
|
|
Imagine
May 25, 2011 19:34:30 GMT 10
Post by papapodjov on May 25, 2011 19:34:30 GMT 10
Religion plays a part in forming social groupings, in getting access to childrens minds, in making people believe they are 'different' from the other kids, even 'better' than the other kids... it is divisive in my experience though merely a part of a larger divisive whole...
No time to spend debating, but had to toss the coin.
|
|
|
Imagine
May 26, 2011 0:18:17 GMT 10
Post by rareearth on May 26, 2011 0:18:17 GMT 10
Religion plays a part in forming social groupings, in getting access to childrens minds, in making people believe they are 'different' from the other kids, even 'better' than the other kids... it is divisive in my experience though merely a part of a larger divisive whole... No time to spend debating, but had to toss the coin. You are right. False religion, which doesn't really have any cultural or moral value, is exactly like that. Hopefully we can end false religion (and false science) for good in the future.
|
|
|
Imagine
May 26, 2011 0:48:35 GMT 10
Post by papapodjov on May 26, 2011 0:48:35 GMT 10
I've got a feeling I'm wielding a tin opener with this question.... but can you explain or post a link to what you mean by 'false' religion?
|
|
|
Imagine
May 26, 2011 1:15:50 GMT 10
Post by rareearth on May 26, 2011 1:15:50 GMT 10
I've got a feeling I'm wielding a tin opener with this question.... but can you explain or post a link to what you mean by 'false' religion? Not at all. Not only I'm an independent scholar and theologian, but I also happen to be a legally consecrated bishop. Research in my book summarises the characteristics of a false religion (or cult) on pages 13 and 14: So to summarise, these are the characteristics of a cult:
1. Has exclusive beliefs and practices — a cult has beliefs that exclude other people, especially people of other religions, nationalities, ethnic groups, or races. A cult has beliefs that are not shared by others, especially people of other religions. A cult also has beliefs that are not shared with others without proselytising purpose. 2. Is an unorthodox religion — a cult breaks with convention or tradition entirely. A cult is irregular, ad hoc, without foundational catechism or scripture. A cult lacks specific rules, laws, beliefs, or doctrines. A cult is heretical in the most negative sense. 3. Is an extremist religion — a cult holds extreme views. A cult's views violate common moral standards. A cult avoids balance, fairness, compromise, moderation, modesty, equilibrium, or common decorum. A cult can be radical, sexist, racist, discriminatory or violent. 4. Is a false religion — a cult has views that are not in accordance with fact, reality, or actuality. A cult has doctrinal errors, or is based on erroneous or fallacious thinking. A cult is deceptive. A cult is delusive, or inappropriate to reality or facts. A cult is designed to deceive, and carries forth a sham modesty. 5. Is a religion within a religion — a cult, unlike the benign sect, does not eventually separate from another religious organisation. A cult is like a malignant tumour that grows off an otherwise healthy body, and it always robs followers from the healthy religious body from which it sprung. Unlike sects, cults are born in one region, but never migrate to a truly different region, since they always grow from a healthy religious body. As with any malignant tumour, the cult has to be eliminated or repudiated, from or by the otherwise healthy religious body, or it will metastasise like a malignant tumour. 6. Is a new/small religion — this is not a problem per se, but can be a problem if the religion also has any of the characteristics above, too strong a tendency towards proselytising, and no apparent general educational purpose.Of course, you can go in greater detail by buying my book. It is quite an interesting and educational read: truereligion.cesidio.net
|
|
|
Imagine
May 26, 2011 2:27:56 GMT 10
Post by Zandrovia on May 26, 2011 2:27:56 GMT 10
With all due respect to the Governor, and someone may correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to be that a false religion, in your eyes, is any in which the followers do not declare you to be their god.
|
|
|
Imagine
May 26, 2011 4:43:48 GMT 10
Post by rareearth on May 26, 2011 4:43:48 GMT 10
With all due respect to the Governor, and someone may correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to be that a false religion, in your eyes, is any in which the followers do not declare you to be their god. Yes, I'm a child of God, and as such a potential citizen (not slave) of his galactic Kingdom. Are you suggesting I am not? Are you suggesting that the God(s) that made man somehow has (have) more rights than me, like a white master had more rights than his black slave? Is that what you also think is THE LAW (and equivalent to TRUE RELIGION)? I believe Adam was given dominion over the whole Earth. That hardly makes him a "dependent", "employee", or "slave" of the very unusual Parent(s) that created him. Besides that, I have, like people from all true religions, a God in human form (that's what makes him a legitimate sovereign or judge, because he is not above me legally or otherwise, but a peer), and he is also called haMashiach or "the Messiah". I will, like other people following a true religion, recognise him at least when he shows his adoption papers, straight from God Almighty (read Psalm 2). Some might even recognise him earlier than that, for prophecies from many religious traditions suggest that all on Earth will either love him with all their heart, or hate him in the same measure. No, haMashiach is not a child of God by blood, but shall be a child of God in legal form. These are things almost nobody understands, but they prove our Creator(s) is (are) just beyond compare. As the Bible's Old Testament shows, haMashiach will also call all enlightened men "Gods", although he will not assume they are naturally perfect or just (read Psalm 82).
|
|
|
Imagine
May 26, 2011 5:58:29 GMT 10
Post by Lykos Packleader on May 26, 2011 5:58:29 GMT 10
Heyla, [quote …. So to summarise, these are the characteristics of a cult: 1. Has exclusive beliefs and practices — a cult has beliefs that exclude other people, especially people of other religions, nationalities, ethnic groups, or races. A cult has beliefs that are not shared by others, especially people of other religions. A cult also has beliefs that are not shared with others without proselytising purpose. 2. Is an unorthodox religion — a cult breaks with convention or tradition entirely. A cult is irregular, ad hoc, without foundational catechism or scripture … [etc.] 3. Is an extremist religion — a cult holds extreme views.[etc.] 4. Is a false religion — a cult has views that are not in accordance with fact, reality, or 5. Is a religion within a religion — a cult, unlike the benign sect, does not eventually separate from another religious organisation. A cult is like a malignant tumour that grows off an otherwise healthy body, and it always robs followers from the healthy religious body from which it sprung. Unlike sects, cults are born in one region, but never migrate to a truly different region, since they always grow from a healthy religious body. As with any malignant tumour, the cult has to be eliminated or repudiated, from or by the otherwise healthy religious body, or it will metastasise like a malignant tumour. 6. Is a new/small religion — this is not a problem per se, but can be a problem if the religion also has any of the characteristics above, [etc.] Please take notice that the word “cult” comes from culture, and in #’s 1-4, a cultural micronation can have many of the same aspects: in reality, it’s all a matter of point of view…. Sort of similar to the word “sinister,” which (originally) simply meant “left-handed,” not “evil.” Note the interesting similarity to the use of “dark” to mean “bad,” or “evil,” or “wrong.” You humans have such an interesting language… it’s periodic lack of logic is what makes English such a difficult tongue to dissect. Lykosha is a socio-political “cult” and experiment. That does not make us “false;” it makes us different, Tallini…. Or is it only right (correct) if you say it is?
|
|
George
Global Administrator
Head Honcho and Spangle of the Cosmos
Posts: 2,997
|
Imagine
May 26, 2011 6:13:40 GMT 10
Post by George on May 26, 2011 6:13:40 GMT 10
I've got a feeling I'm wielding a tin opener with this question.... but can you explain or post a link to what you mean by 'false' religion? False religion (noun): Term invented by Cesidio Tallini to apply to any belief not held by himself.
|
|
|
Imagine
May 26, 2011 7:16:30 GMT 10
Post by rareearth on May 26, 2011 7:16:30 GMT 10
Lykosha is a socio-political “cult” and experiment. That does not make us “false;” it makes us different, Tallini…. Or is it only right (correct) if you say it is? In truth, the word "cult" also applies to very positive and sometimes new/small religions. Another quote from my book (which I hope someone will eventually read, and not because I'll get rich when they will): "This book is not one of those books that claims or shows that all religions are cults, but the author's religion is not. "No, if one examines all the possible meanings of the word cult, positive and negative, then even my religion would fall under that broad category." Making some thoughts inaccessible to those who are not ready to learn them yet, or because they actually need to buy and read a book, and/or need to make some commitment, doesn't make a religion or philosophy necessarily 'exclusive', and thus false. An (alleged) original philosophy or theology doesn't necessarily make it 'unorthodox', and thus false. Not for anything, but the word 'original' also means 'primordial', 'as was in the beginning', so the thoughts may not be as unorthodox as they appear to be. A philosophy that holds the view that even white people deserve protection is not necessarily exclusive and/or extreme, and thus false. A little bit of Zionism doesn't probably hurt either, or a little bit of self-esteem, nor does possession of a little self-esteem mean that one is outright arrogant. A small religious group is not necessarily a 'cult' in the most negative sense, although small religious groups usually are. There are some errors in grammar and orthography in my book, I can assure you. This doesn't make the essential contents or ideas erroneous or false, however.
|
|
|
Imagine
May 26, 2011 7:34:56 GMT 10
Post by rareearth on May 26, 2011 7:34:56 GMT 10
False religion (noun): Term invented by Cesidio Tallini to apply to any belief not held by himself. Hey George, despite what you may think or believe, I do not sincerely believe I'm the Messiah. But you know something George? Even that belief could be false, but that doesn't make it necessarily negative if it is a false belief. False beliefs and false religions are not the same things. False beliefs are inaccuracies/delusions about details, which generally don't hurt humanity or even oneself. False beliefs can change when evidence accumulates. False religions, on the other hand, are inaccurate in many ways, and usually in ways which do harm to humanity or even oneself. False religions do not change when evidence accumulates. It is thus important to hold lots of false beliefs about one's true value, but one needs to stay as far as possible from false religion. You see, beliefs are opinions, but true religion is not an opinion, believe it or not.
|
|
|
Imagine
May 26, 2011 12:43:22 GMT 10
Post by Zandrovia on May 26, 2011 12:43:22 GMT 10
With all due respect to the Governor, and someone may correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to be that a false religion, in your eyes, is any in which the followers do not declare you to be their god. Are you suggesting I am not? Are you suggesting that the God(s) that made man somehow has (have) more rights than me, Sir, I am not "suggesting" it, I am saying quite boldly, you are no god, and indeed the Creator is above all, including you. While we are a very religious people, as our Kingdom is a matter of faith, I still respect all legitimate and peaceful religions as each is free to believe as they see fit, but to declare oneself to be a god is rather over the top, even in micronationalism.
|
|
George
Global Administrator
Head Honcho and Spangle of the Cosmos
Posts: 2,997
|
Imagine
May 26, 2011 22:24:32 GMT 10
Post by George on May 26, 2011 22:24:32 GMT 10
Hey George, despite what you may think or believe, I do not sincerely believe I'm the Messiah. What I think or believe is beside the point, Cesidio. The fact of the matter is that you yourself have asserted that you consider yourself to be a deity on a number of occasions over the past decade; the most memorable instance, as I recall, involved threats of apocalyptic Judgement against a number of Wikipedia administrators. People tend to not quickly forget that sort of thing.
|
|
|
Imagine
May 27, 2011 0:39:24 GMT 10
Post by rareearth on May 27, 2011 0:39:24 GMT 10
While we are a very religious people, as our Kingdom is a matter of faith, I still respect all legitimate and peaceful religions as each is free to believe as they see fit, but to declare oneself to be a god is rather over the top, even in micronationalism. You obviously don't read the applications that reach the Micronational Professional Registry, so your judgement of "over the top, even in micronationalism", is probably as representative of micronationalism on the whole as the Wikipedia's ancient Roman lifespan of 28 years is representative of the actual Roman reality of 2,000 years ago. Besides that, my interpretation... child of God = God...is actually NOT interpretation, but taken straight from the Holy Bible, Psalm Chapter 82, verse 6, and from the words of the future Messiah himself: bible.cc/psalms/82-6.htmSo according to the literal Bible, I am right about being a God, naturally a miniature God, while you are plain wrong. Besides that, all acknowledged UMMOA nationals and/or Cesidians are Gods, because there simply isn't such a thing, in our culture, as a subject or citizen, with no rights, and only with obligations. We find such a thing UNLAWFUL, and the result of inferior human tradition, not SCRIPTURAL.
|
|
|
Imagine
May 27, 2011 1:21:10 GMT 10
Post by rareearth on May 27, 2011 1:21:10 GMT 10
What I think or believe is beside the point, Cesidio. Wrong George. What you believe is NOT "besides the point", because what you believe is probably not "proven scientific fact". The fact of the matter is that you yourself have asserted that you consider yourself to be a deity on a number of occasions over the past decade; the most memorable instance, as I recall, involved threats of apocalyptic Judgement against a number of Wikipedia administrators. People tend to not quickly forget that sort of thing. You obviously have not read the Bible, and I'm almost certain that Wikipedia admins haven't either. My interpretation... child of God = God...is actually NOT interpretation, but taken straight from the Holy Bible, Psalm Chapter 82, verse 6, and from the words of the future Messiah himself, whose ideas are NOT faulty: bible.cc/psalms/82-6.htmSo according to the literal Bible, I am right about being a God, naturally a miniature God, while you are plain wrong in disputing that fact, and I believe I know myself well enough that nobody will dispute the fact that I'm a child of God, including God's angels. Besides that, if I am right about being a child of God, and even God's angels will not dispute that fact on Judgement Day, then the Law of conservation of Momentum applies, or Newton's 3rd Law: to every action in the past, there is always an equal and opposite reaction in the future. That means I am ACTUALLY RIGHT about the alleged threats of apocalyptic Judgement against a number of Wikipedia administrators. Yes, if I am right that I am a child of God, and thus a God in the literal sense of the Bible's Psalm 82:6, then those who dispute I'm a child of God will, in fact, be judged VERY HARSHLY on Judgement Day, and they will no longer live as human beings. No George, I don't even have to be the Messiah for that to happen, because as a child of God, I automatically become part of the Messiah's entourage, and he will treat me like gold in his eyesight. Luke 16:15 sums it up quite nicely: He said to them, "You are those who justify yourselves in the sight of men, but God knows your hearts. For that which is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God. Actually, if things continue to go downhill here on earth, the way they've been going for some time, thanks also to your sub-holy scientists, who are NOT children of God, because they don't behave like children of God, then not only some Wikipedia administrators will no longer live as human beings after Judgement Day (and that makes me a Real Prophet in the long term, right?), but they will not live as human beings for another thousand years; trust me on the logic of that one. For if they are not children of God, and thus Gods, and yet they show insolence to the real and confirmed Gods, i.e. they exhibit rudeness and impertinence, and are inclined to take liberties even with Sacred Scripture.., then beasts they are George, and beasts they shall return. Amen.
|
|
|
Imagine
May 27, 2011 2:13:10 GMT 10
Post by papapodjov on May 27, 2011 2:13:10 GMT 10
I guess its too late to retract my question....?
|
|
George
Global Administrator
Head Honcho and Spangle of the Cosmos
Posts: 2,997
|
Imagine
May 27, 2011 5:21:01 GMT 10
Post by George on May 27, 2011 5:21:01 GMT 10
I'm afraid so, Pandora :-)
|
|
|
Imagine
May 27, 2011 6:21:18 GMT 10
Post by Lykos Packleader on May 27, 2011 6:21:18 GMT 10
Tallini, How sad that you have transformed one of John Lennon’s most profound works into [yet] another opportunity of beating your own drum. I cannot myself continue to give you more such opportunities, so – with profound respect and apologies to the victims of your rant – I must myself leave this thread without closure or resolution. www.packwolf.net/wolfsway.htmlAs you can all plainly see, the Way of the Wolf does not require the belief in any god, gods, goddess or goddesses …. But a way of life that some have compared to a system of spirituality. I myself am flattered to have it so, but must reiterate that this Way is much older than any system of belief. It is not for me or mine to persuade or convince any other individual, no matter their race, species, or [micro]nationality … simply put, I Walk the Way of the Wolf… so can you, if you choose to do so. I would very much welcome those who do.
|
|
|
Imagine
May 27, 2011 7:03:06 GMT 10
Post by papapodjov on May 27, 2011 7:03:06 GMT 10
I'm afraid so, Pandora :-) I'm a great believer... ... ... in asking questions, and being a newcomer to the world of micronationalism I think it's good to get a grasp on personalities, beliefs etc, and the best way to do that is flip the box and peer inside... I fully respect Gov Tallini's right to believe whatever he wants, and for him to make sense of the world in any way he deems fit, as long as I'm not force-fed. I believe that we are all products of our environment, and as such Tallini's beliefs stem from information he's had access to... and how he has interpreted them... as is the case with all of us. I'm just a working class spud muncher from Belfast... my environment has taught me to interpret belief systems in a certain way. It never ceases to amaze me how two people from different sides of a wall can be so committed to the 'truth' they have been brought up believing.... Essentially there is little difference in terms of educational standards, social depravation and everything else besides.... yet they would kill each other for their indoctrinated 'ism'... We could get into all sorts of shenaniganed arguments about intelligence... freewill.... but even that we sit at our screens in our different parts of the world, tapping english words, and that we are all products of the european imperialistic project in one way or another.... that our 'common morals', as Gov Tallini expressed in a post above, are common only to those who understand and have had access to western definitions of this common morality... Commanality and consensus doesn't make our interpretation of morals correct necessarily when these morals are placed upon an environment where they have no relevance... I suppose I'm just saying that it all depends where you're standing...
|
|
|
Imagine
May 27, 2011 7:19:23 GMT 10
Post by rareearth on May 27, 2011 7:19:23 GMT 10
Tallini, How sad that you have transformed one of John Lennon’s most profound works into [yet] another opportunity of beating your own drum. I cannot myself continue to give you more such opportunities, so – with profound respect and apologies to the victims of your rant – I must myself leave this thread without closure or resolution. Well, this thread started with a quote of Richard Dawkins, who was using John Lennon's song Imagine, among other metaphors, to beat his own drum about atheism. So how can Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel accusatory finger (I'm now using an artist more brilliant than John Lennon as a metaphor, and he wasn't a fan of 'No Religion') only point to me? (As a side issue, I also don't get how the accusation finger, and/or Judgement, points exclusively to Adam, either in Michelangelo's painting or in the Bible, since compared to Cain his son, Adam was sinless, innocent, and quite frankly has gotten a bad rap from Christians and Jews, but that is not the only illogical thing about the narrative of the Holy Bible.) Isn't everyone here using that song, and Richard Dawkins, as a stepping stone to describing their own religion or philosophy, and aren't you using it to also mention your "system of spirituality"? Why does everybody's stepping stone turn automatically into my stumbling block? I don't get this rationale either. Seems like rather arbitrary religious discrimination. I'm not the only one posting religious themes here, and since two people, rather than admit I am indeed a God according to the Book of Psalms, accuse me of a heresy which doesn't really exist, at least in the Book of Psalms, don't I have the right (and obligation) to respond and/or defend my religious position? Simply put, my religious position, which I can back with holy writ, is that it isn't a crime to call oneself a child or son of God, and a child or son of God is also a God, just as a fig tree produces figs, not thorns. I think I do have the right to respond and/or defend my religious position, even according to the US Constitution's First Amendment, to be perfectly frank.
|
|
|
Imagine
May 27, 2011 14:10:10 GMT 10
Post by Zandrovia on May 27, 2011 14:10:10 GMT 10
I'm afraid so, Pandora :-) I'm a great believer... ... ... in asking questions, and being a newcomer to the world of micronationalism I think it's good to get a grasp on personalities, beliefs etc, and the best way to do that is flip the box and peer inside... I fully respect Gov Tallini's right to believe whatever he wants, and for him to make sense of the world in any way he deems fit, as long as I'm not force-fed. I believe that we are all products of our environment, and as such Tallini's beliefs stem from information he's had access to... and how he has interpreted them... as is the case with all of us. I'm just a working class spud muncher from Belfast... my environment has taught me to interpret belief systems in a certain way. It never ceases to amaze me how two people from different sides of a wall can be so committed to the 'truth' they have been brought up believing.... Essentially there is little difference in terms of educational standards, social depravation and everything else besides.... yet they would kill each other for their indoctrinated 'ism'... We could get into all sorts of shenaniganed arguments about intelligence... freewill.... but even that we sit at our screens in our different parts of the world, tapping english words, and that we are all products of the european imperialistic project in one way or another.... that our 'common morals', as Gov Tallini expressed in a post above, are common only to those who understand and have had access to western definitions of this common morality... Commanality and consensus doesn't make our interpretation of morals correct necessarily when these morals are placed upon an environment where they have no relevance... I suppose I'm just saying that it all depends where you're standing... I agree with you to some extent; however, there is a big difference in an authentic belief and a purely arrogant, delusional, and irrational declaration that is so absurd or dangerous that it bears pointing out, at least to some degree. I believe Jim Jones carried such beliefs as well, and we all know how that "ended".
|
|
|
Imagine
May 27, 2011 14:19:05 GMT 10
Post by Zandrovia on May 27, 2011 14:19:05 GMT 10
Tallini, with all due respect, your assertion that being a child of God somehow then makes you G_D, is no more valid, and no less absurd and impossible than trying to claim that a man can some how be his own father. Again, while everyone is free to believe what they wish, to think such is irrational at best, just shy of pure lunacy at worst.
And I am afraid that George is quite right, any point that you may wish to get across to the rest of the world will be completely marred and and discredited with such claims to the secular world, and dismissed as the heresy that it is by the religious world. But by all means, it is your life and your path, and you alone shall walk it.
As already pointed out by others, returning to this thread would seem to be a rather futile effort so for the sake of peace I shall bid it adieu.
|
|
|
Imagine
May 27, 2011 16:35:00 GMT 10
Post by sogoln on May 27, 2011 16:35:00 GMT 10
My interpretation... child of God = GodIf everyone is a god, actually no one is.
|
|
|
Imagine
May 28, 2011 0:03:01 GMT 10
Post by rareearth on May 28, 2011 0:03:01 GMT 10
My interpretation... child of God = GodIf everyone is a god, actually no one is. Your generalisation does not take into account the very real Judgement Day ( Yom HaDin). If everybody is a God, then Judgement Day would be absurd. Perhaps the word 'God' exists in the future Messiah's vocabulary to justify the fact that some people were simply not judged, not because they were necessarily perfect, and the status of 'God' would legally justify such treatment. Even our heads of state and diplomats have a degree of 'immunity' from prosecution, but how do you extend that to non-diplomats, non-government ministers or leaders, however admirable and/or decent, unless you start calling these people... ' Gods'? Words are everything in law. If you call a human being a 'person', you are not simply stating he/she is a human being; you are stating he/she is a subject/citizen, not a sovereign. And that matters a lot, because 'persons' can be prosecuted, but not sovereigns. Now, if some rather admirable, though not necessarily perfect people are ' Gods', then I think some clearly aren't, and that justifies their lack of immunity from Judgement. Just as you can turn a non-profit into a for profit vehicle by corruption, you can also turn what should have been a 'God' on the outside, into a 'beast' because of what is missing inside. These latter folks weren't just evil, selfish, and despicable in one or more ways; they actually failed to spiritually evolve, through many human lifetimes, into what their Father(s) would have wanted them to be. They are a disappointment, and the Messiah won't so much reject them as they have rejected him. And they can't reject him without legal consequence, because he is the Firstborn of the Almighty God(s), the one who actually gave birth to all of humanity in the past, about as close to a God in human terms as one can get. Those people who accuse Adam, should really look at themselves in the mirror, not just because Adam was really not a sinner, but because they are infinitely stupid. In accusing Adam they are also violating one of the Mosaic Commandments (the 'Honour your Father and Mother' part), and they are clearly not above Adam, not above his future Judgement. I don't know why no priest or rabbi speaks in this way, but it all seems logical to me. It all adds up in a spiritual way: a veritable Calculus of Judgement.
|
|
Dagostinia
Full Member
Monarchy of Dagostinia
Posts: 114
|
Imagine
May 28, 2011 1:14:10 GMT 10
Post by Dagostinia on May 28, 2011 1:14:10 GMT 10
I think I do have the right to respond and/or defend my religious position, even according to the US Constitution's First Amendment, to be perfectly frank. To quote Country singer sensation Trace Adkins: "Excuse me First amendment? Son, the first amendment protects you from the government Not from me You can say whatever you want to out there You come within reach of me I'll exercise my right to give you a good ol' country ass whoopin' Is what I'll do for you By God" And I might add that you can talk but nobody has the right to listen. Just to clarify what the First Amendment is really about.
|
|
George
Global Administrator
Head Honcho and Spangle of the Cosmos
Posts: 2,997
|
Imagine
May 28, 2011 5:41:30 GMT 10
Post by George on May 28, 2011 5:41:30 GMT 10
It is indeed an oft-overlooked fact that the right to free speech does not guarantee that anyone will (a) listen to the speaker, or (b) care what they say.
:-)
|
|
|
Imagine
May 28, 2011 9:41:57 GMT 10
Post by rareearth on May 28, 2011 9:41:57 GMT 10
...And I might add that you can talk but nobody has the right to listen. Just to clarify what the First Amendment is really about. You should consider yourself blessed. In China you have a right to listen only, not a right to talk... That's like being a seven-year-old child in front of a nineteenth century British headmaster, and not for just 9 months out of the whole year, but for your entire lifetime. Also think about nice places like Saudi Arabia, where even parents must teach their children the state's version of Islam, and regardless of what they personally think. Who is the parent, and who is the child? I'm not surrounded by true micronationalists here. True micronationalism is not really about exercising your rights, because you really don't have the right to call your garden your 'country'. At best, you have the privilege, if the locals have a 'live and let live' philosophy. True micronationalism is about exercising the rights you should have had, but also honouring the same in others. A good micronationalist cannot be intolerant for too long, because the moment he becomes intolerant is the moment he becomes a hypocrite. And the moment you become a hypocrite, is the moment you fail as a micronationalist, and as a micronational leader. Every good micronationalist is basically a Robert F. Kennedy at the core: There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?
|
|
|
Imagine
May 28, 2011 10:25:58 GMT 10
Post by sogoln on May 28, 2011 10:25:58 GMT 10
If everyone is a god, actually no one is. Your generalisation does not take into account the very real Judgement Day ( Yom HaDin). If everybody is a God, then Judgement Day would be absurd. I am afraid it is. ;D
|
|