I can't imagine not believing in God.

by MsGrowingGirl20 643 Replies latest members private

  • tec
    tec

    What of them? I agree with the first. Passing judgement on other christians IS arrogant.

    Then all are guilty of arrogance, EP, including you.

    But speaking the truth of a matter is not passing judgment. Some who claim to be christian are not. Otherwise we would not have warning about being wary of wolves in sheep's clothing; or of false prophets and teachings; or a statement that by their fruits you will know them.

    Just common sense. Everyone makes those kinds of evaluations against the things people claim... it is called examining and testing such claims. We are supposed to do this. Right?

    People are starting to use the same names as shelby and beleiving her theology. Is that name innacurate? If so, why?

    Well I showed where Christ said that... so if anyone is being followed, then it is Christ being followed.

    Peace,

    tammy

    Link
  • EntirelyPossible
    EntirelyPossible

    The use of Jesus' jewish name is not new or isolated to Shelby.

    Google the full name she uses. Every reference comes back to her.

    Then all are guilty of arrogance, EP, including you.

    Good. Be sure, rather than defend your comments, to include others in the mud with you.

    But speaking the truth of a matter is not passing judgment. Some who claim to be christian are not.

    You are passing judgement on others. Trying to come up with loophole to get your out of that isn't flying.

    Well I showed where Christ said that... so if anyone is being followed, then it is Christ being followed.

    Nope, you wrote that you heard that, only AFTER you started hanging with Shelby. You never showed where Christ said that. Not one single person started heard that name without shelby.

    Link
  • EntirelyPossible
    EntirelyPossible

    In any event, I refuse, on this thread, to continue giving shelby the attention she craves. I'm out.

    Link
  • mind blown
    mind blown
    http://meta-religion.com/World_Religions/Ancient_religions/prehistoric_religion.htm#.UMo9P66OhOQ
    The Concept of Deity

    This speculation was in line with the evolutionary thought of the period in which it arose, but it has now become apparent that it was too neat and tidy, too specialized and intellectualized an approach to explain accurately the origin and development of religion and of the concept of deity.

    The starting point of religion must be sought in something more comprehensive: in a belief in a sacred power which transcends the universe, and is its ground and support. This may not have been personified, and so it would seem to have been a vague conception of providence as a creative and recreative power operating in the food quest, sex, fertility, birth, death and the sequence of the seasons. When the idea of this potency acquired an independent life of its own in its various aspects and functions, it found expression in spiritual beings, ghosts of the dead and departmentalized divinities. These had many different shapes and forms, and characteristic features and functions of their own, emerging from a common providential source, incalculable, strong and good, determining the operations of nature and the destinies of humanity, at once above and within the world of time and space.

    The recurrence of this conception of deity in all states of culture and phases of religious development from prehistoric times onwards suggests that it arose spontaneously.

    It was the expression of some inborn thought and feeling, rather than a developed kind of knowledge about the universe and natural phenomena.Its highest expression undoubtedly has been in its monotheistic idea of god as the sole creator and sustainer of all things. So far from polytheism passing into monotheism, speculation about the cosmos and its processes led to the peopling of the natural order with a multitude of spirits and gods, making the supreme being a very vague and inoperative figure obscured in the mist of animism and polytheism, unless it became a pantheistic impersonal absolute as in I Hinduism in India and elsewhere in the Far East. In the other higher religions, to be considered later in this volume, a genuine monotheism was firmly established, notably in Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Under Palaeolithic conditions the notion of providence was much more within the capacity of this stage of prehistoric mentality than speculation about the animation of nature in relation lo spiritual beings and departmentalized divinities organized on a personalized hierarchal basis, or of one wholly exclusive living god like the Aten in Egypt, Ahura Mazdah in Iran, Yahweh in Israel and Allah in the Islamic world, or the Trinity in unity in Christendom.

    Prehistoric Religion

    It would appear that religion in some form or other has been an essential element in the life and culture of humankind throughout the ages, going back far beyond the threshold of history. Moreover, many of the beliefs and practices of the later and higher religions, both ancient and modern, are rooted in their prehistoric prototypes of the Old Stone Age, a period lasting roughly from about 500,000 BC to 10,000 BC. This phase therefore has its place and significance in any study of the religions of the world, past or present. The difficulty, however, about such an inquiry is that nearly all the available data are confined to those concrete survivals like graves, sacred places and their contents, sculptures, bas-reliefs, engravings and paintings that have escaped the ravages of time. Their interpretation must be to some extent conjectural, but much of the material has survived, little changed, in everyday occurrence among the peoples who live today under conditions very similar to those of early humans. If employed with proper caution such evidence can afford useful and illuminating clues to the purpose and meaning of prehistoric religion..........Continued.........

    Link
  • EntirelyPossible
    EntirelyPossible

    It would appear that religion in some form or other has been an essential element in the life and culture of humankind throughout the ages, going back far beyond the threshold of history. Moreover, many of the beliefs and practices of the later and higher religions, both ancient and modern, are rooted in their prehistoric prototypes of the Old Stone Age, a period lasting roughly from about 500,000 BC to 10,000 BC

    I am fascinated with Goblekki Tepe. In fact, my tattoo will be the fox from there.

    Link
  • still thinking
    still thinking

    Of course it can. Experiences and feelings can be manipulated by someone who knows how to manipulate such things, and emotions are powerful things...tec

    Ain't that the truth...see it all the time.

    Link
  • PSacramento
    PSacramento

    There is no evidence that what was written in the canon (with perhaps a tiny exception) was written by any apostle or the author ascribed to the writing, especially the Gospels. Most of the Gospels' origins can only be traced to well over 100 years after Christ's supposed death. The apostles were uneducated while the Gospel writings seem well versed. The style is that of Greek writers and the apostles were illiterate (by the Bible's own admission). There are many more problems associated with that I can't mention now. It just seems that this is the evidence which you are not considering which affects the bottom line of your foundation. I think that by refining what your "foundation" is (not the Bible) you've shown an even shakier source of evidence.

    I know that doesn't really have much to do with this thread but I wanted just to say that:

    Until there is prove that the Gospels were NOT written by those that tradition claimes to h ave written them, then there is no real reason to dispute tradition,is there?

    Mark was written by the companion of Peter, Matthew by Mattehw the tax collector/levite, Luke by the disciple and physician who also wrote acts and John by the one called the beloved disciple ( although his identity is a bit disputed).

    That there is mention of the gospels in circulation before the 2nd century means that there were copies already by then, whichmeans the originals were written beofre that.

    Most scholars and historians date them to mid to last 1st century, 30-60 tears after Jesus death.

    As historical documents go, that is very, very good.

    May I suggest reading some of Bruce Metzger's works?

    Link
  • mind blown
    mind blown

    This is MsG's thread.....would you guys lighten up......

    Link
  • PSacramento
    PSacramento

    Religion and cicilazation/cultre have co-existed since the early record we have, ity is immpossible to state which beget which and it seems that from the very fist civlization/culture there have been religious elements present in them. SOme have even speculated that it was relgion that allowed for the formation of civlization/culture.

    Link
  • EntirelyPossible
    EntirelyPossible

    Until there is prove that the Gospels were NOT written by those that tradition claimes to h ave written them, then there is no real reason to dispute tradition,is there?

    You have that exactly backwards. Until there is proof that the gospels were written by who people claim, there is no reason to believe it, is there?

    Link

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit