|
Post by Admin on Mar 28, 2022 1:12:33 GMT
My guess? Pride. After all, who the hell was he to tell us how to live? It sounds like Rome got pissy because he trashed the money changers' booths at the temple, and the religious types complained. Rome was desperately trying to keep the peace in Judea, and so instead of risking unrest, they charged Jesus with treason and... you know the rest. That's a pretty steep penalty for turning over some tables. Huh. I'm sure there was more to it than that. He challenged the leaders. Called them hypocrites, exposed their moral bankruptcy, and refused to kiss the rings. No first amendment then. >_>
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 28, 2022 1:12:54 GMT
Too late for that. I was having a great day until you started shoving atheism down my throat. In exactly which post did I start shoving atheism down your throat? Link, please. I was explaining my lack of belief, not proselytizing. Funny how that works, isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by mystery on Mar 28, 2022 1:22:13 GMT
It sounds like Rome got pissy because he trashed the money changers' booths at the temple, and the religious types complained. Rome was desperately trying to keep the peace in Judea, and so instead of risking unrest, they charged Jesus with treason and... you know the rest. That's a pretty steep penalty for turning over some tables. Huh. I'm sure there was more to it than that. He challenged the leaders. Called them hypocrites, exposed their moral bankruptcy, and refused to kiss the rings. No first amendment then. >_> But which leaders? Rome or Judea? Maybe this is why my Church glossed over this part. It could easily seem more than a little antisemitic to start pointing fingers at the Jewish religious leaders of the day. I wouldn't go there either, honestly. Better just to call it God's will and leave it alone.
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Mar 28, 2022 1:32:06 GMT
In exactly which post did I start shoving atheism down your throat? Link, please. I was explaining my lack of belief, not proselytizing. Funny how that works, isn't it? Just referring to something you said first. And now, I have to go do evening chores. Living things come first at my house. Bye...
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 28, 2022 1:34:09 GMT
I'm sure there was more to it than that. He challenged the leaders. Called them hypocrites, exposed their moral bankruptcy, and refused to kiss the rings. No first amendment then. >_> But which leaders? Rome or Judea? Maybe this is why my Church glossed over this part. It could easily seem more than a little antisemitic to start pointing fingers at the Jewish religious leaders of the day. I wouldn't go there either, honestly. Better just to call it God's will and leave it alone. Jesus was Jewish, wasn't he? In any case, I'm pretty sure it was all of them. Jesus was anti-religion. He saw it for what it is: division. Here we have a world in which virtually everyone belonged to a sect that was at war with another, and all over disagreements about what God wants. And along comes some crazy fool on a donkey telling everyone to love their enemies and that their religious leaders were no more or less "saintly" than a whore on the street? Preposterous!
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 28, 2022 1:34:27 GMT
Funny how that works, isn't it? Just referring to something you said first. So was I.
|
|
|
Post by mystery on Mar 28, 2022 1:45:59 GMT
But which leaders? Rome or Judea? Maybe this is why my Church glossed over this part. It could easily seem more than a little antisemitic to start pointing fingers at the Jewish religious leaders of the day. I wouldn't go there either, honestly. Better just to call it God's will and leave it alone. Jesus was Jewish, wasn't he? In any case, I'm pretty sure it was all of them. Jesus was anti-religion. He saw it for what it is: division. Here we have a world in which virtually everyone belonged to a sect that was at war with another, and all over disagreements about what God wants. And along comes some crazy fool on a donkey telling everyone to love their enemies? Preposterous! I just mean in the context of today's world, I don't think it's a great idea to teach a congregation that Jewish leaders killed Jesus. The nuances are so easily lost, and it just sounds really, really bad. I think the main problem with religion is just legalism, exalting the form and structure of the religion to the point that it basically becomes like an idol in itself. Religion should be a tool to help us grow beyond that. If religion takes people to a dark place, then they've made a wrong turn somewhere. I like religion. I think they're all fascinating, and I really enjoy finding the universal truths in all of them. But like anything else, it can be misused and twisted into something dangerous. Fanaticism in religion or politics is devastating for everyone involved.
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Mar 28, 2022 1:53:20 GMT
But which leaders? Rome or Judea? Maybe this is why my Church glossed over this part. It could easily seem more than a little antisemitic to start pointing fingers at the Jewish religious leaders of the day. I wouldn't go there either, honestly. Better just to call it God's will and leave it alone. Jesus was Jewish, wasn't he? In any case, I'm pretty sure it was all of them. Jesus was anti-religion. He saw it for what it is: division. Here we have a world in which virtually everyone belonged to a sect that was at war with another, and all over disagreements about what God wants. And along comes some crazy fool on a donkey telling everyone to love their enemies and that their religious leaders were no more or less "saintly" than a whore on the street? Preposterous! Then how do you explain Matthew 10:34, NIV: "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 28, 2022 2:03:57 GMT
Jesus was Jewish, wasn't he? In any case, I'm pretty sure it was all of them. Jesus was anti-religion. He saw it for what it is: division. Here we have a world in which virtually everyone belonged to a sect that was at war with another, and all over disagreements about what God wants. And along comes some crazy fool on a donkey telling everyone to love their enemies? Preposterous! I just mean in the context of today's world, I don't think it's a great idea to teach a congregation that Jewish leaders killed Jesus. The nuances are so easily lost, and it just sounds really, really bad. I think the main problem with religion is just legalism, exalting the form and structure of the religion to the point that it basically becomes like an idol in itself. Religion should be a tool to help us grow beyond that. If religion takes people to a dark place, then they've made a wrong turn somewhere. I like religion. I think they're all fascinating, and I really enjoy finding the universal truths in all of them. But like anything else, it can be misused and twisted into something dangerous. Fanaticism in religion or politics is devastating for everyone involved. Oh, I misunderstood. Sorry. You were asking which leaders crucified him? Well, Pilate was a Roman official. I wasn't aware that people debate this. Seems a bit irrelevant to me. When I think of an innocent person who just wants us to love each other being tortured, nailed to a cross, and left to die, my question isn't "who did it," but rather, "what the hell is wrong with us?" In context of today's world, I don't see that much has changed.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 28, 2022 2:07:08 GMT
Jesus was Jewish, wasn't he? In any case, I'm pretty sure it was all of them. Jesus was anti-religion. He saw it for what it is: division. Here we have a world in which virtually everyone belonged to a sect that was at war with another, and all over disagreements about what God wants. And along comes some crazy fool on a donkey telling everyone to love their enemies and that their religious leaders were no more or less "saintly" than a whore on the street? Preposterous! Then how do you explain Matthew 10:34, NIV: "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." If I answer that, will you accuse me of proselytizing or apologizing?
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Mar 28, 2022 2:09:27 GMT
Then how do you explain Matthew 10:34, NIV: "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." If I answer that, will you accuse me of proselytizing or apologizing? An explanation would be just fine, thanks. Just FYI, there is one. Do you know it?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 28, 2022 2:27:46 GMT
If I answer that, will you accuse me of proselytizing or apologizing? An explanation would be just fine, thanks. Just FYI, there is one. Do you know it? Ooo! A test! Ok, but please understand that I'm no expert and don't claim to have all the answers, or even any "correct" ones, for that matter. Biblical scholars would probably say that while he would ultimately bring peace, here he was referring to his purpose at that particular point in time, which was to separate the righteous from the unrighteous. Unless you're willing to argue that it was a literal sword, I'd say he was simply conveying that he wasn't there to pat any backs, take sides, or offer reassurance. If you're a Game of Thrones fan, I'd say he was there to break the wheel. Am I close?
|
|
|
Post by mystery on Mar 28, 2022 2:33:21 GMT
I just mean in the context of today's world, I don't think it's a great idea to teach a congregation that Jewish leaders killed Jesus. The nuances are so easily lost, and it just sounds really, really bad. I think the main problem with religion is just legalism, exalting the form and structure of the religion to the point that it basically becomes like an idol in itself. Religion should be a tool to help us grow beyond that. If religion takes people to a dark place, then they've made a wrong turn somewhere. I like religion. I think they're all fascinating, and I really enjoy finding the universal truths in all of them. But like anything else, it can be misused and twisted into something dangerous. Fanaticism in religion or politics is devastating for everyone involved. Oh, I misunderstood. Sorry. You were asking which leaders crucified him? Well, Pilate was a Roman official. I wasn't aware that people debate this. Seems a bit irrelevant to me. When I think of an innocent person who just wants us to love each other being tortured, nailed to a cross, and left to die, my question isn't "who did it," but rather, "what the hell is wrong with us?" In context of today's world, I don't see that much has changed. I was just asking whose ring he refused to kiss and who he was calling a hypocrite. I'm just saying that casting any blame on the Jewish people for the crucifixion is very complicated, to say the least. I think my Church did teach about the money changers defiling the temple with their greed, and Jesus turning over their tables, but they never really made the connection between that and the crucifixion. I think that's understandable.
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Mar 28, 2022 2:39:43 GMT
An explanation would be just fine, thanks. Just FYI, there is one. Do you know it? Ooo! A test! Ok, but please understand that I'm no expert and don't claim to have all the answers, or even any "correct" ones, for that matter. Biblical scholars would probably say that while he would ultimately bring peace, here he was referring to his purpose at that particular point in time, which was to separate the righteous from the unrighteous. Unless you're willing to argue that it was a literal sword, I'd say he was simply conveying that he wasn't there to pat any backs, take sides, or offer reassurance. If you're a Game of Thrones fan, I'd say he was there to break the wheel. Am I close? Yes you are... Good for you! You win! But, just FYI, I have never even seen an episode of GoT, so not a fan. But I am a fan of Criminal Minds, and in one of those episode, "Minimal Loss", Luke Perry portrays a cult leader who is going to blow up the compound and followers. Reid tries to talk him out of it, using another scripture, but he doesn't stop until shot dead by the FBI. Then his 16 year old wife detonates the bomb, but most of the people had already fled. That is where I first heard that verse, and looked it up for context.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 28, 2022 2:42:05 GMT
Oh, I misunderstood. Sorry. You were asking which leaders crucified him? Well, Pilate was a Roman official. I wasn't aware that people debate this. Seems a bit irrelevant to me. When I think of an innocent person who just wants us to love each other being tortured, nailed to a cross, and left to die, my question isn't "who did it," but rather, "what the hell is wrong with us?" In context of today's world, I don't see that much has changed. I was just asking whose ring he refused to kiss and who he was calling a hypocrite. I'm just saying that casting any blame on the Jewish people for the crucifixion is very complicated, to say the least. I think my Church did teach about the money changers defiling the temple with their greed, and Jesus turning over their tables, but they never really made the connection between that and the crucifixion. I think that's understandable. If I implied blame on the Jewish people, it wasn't intentional. I don't blame either the Romans or the Jews. I blame mankind in general. We didn't create this world, but we definitely made it what it is.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 28, 2022 2:54:57 GMT
Ooo! A test! Ok, but please understand that I'm no expert and don't claim to have all the answers, or even any "correct" ones, for that matter. Biblical scholars would probably say that while he would ultimately bring peace, here he was referring to his purpose at that particular point in time, which was to separate the righteous from the unrighteous. Unless you're willing to argue that it was a literal sword, I'd say he was simply conveying that he wasn't there to pat any backs, take sides, or offer reassurance. If you're a Game of Thrones fan, I'd say he was there to break the wheel. Am I close? Yes you are... Good for you! You win! Yay! So I'll see you in church next Sunday, then? Just to cap this off... One of the main characters referred to all the different houses and their kings as spokes on a wheel. When someone pointed out that many before her have tried and failed to 'stop the wheel,' she responded: "I'm not going to stop the wheel; I'm going to break the wheel." (When I wrote my previous response, I thought it was "I'm not going to reinvent the wheel," which would be more apropos to our chat, but I suppose it still works ok.)
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Mar 28, 2022 3:10:48 GMT
Yes you are... Good for you! You win! Yay! So I'll see you in church next Sunday, then? Just to cap this off... One of the main characters referred to all the different houses and their kings as spokes on a wheel. When someone pointed out that many before her have tried and failed to 'stop the wheel,' she responded: "I'm not going to stop the wheel; I'm going to break the wheel." (When I wrote my previous response, I thought it was "I'm not going to reinvent the wheel," which would be more apropos to our chat, but I suppose it still works ok.) How about the second Tuesday of next week? Much less crowded...
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 28, 2022 3:24:43 GMT
Yay! So I'll see you in church next Sunday, then? Just to cap this off... One of the main characters referred to all the different houses and their kings as spokes on a wheel. When someone pointed out that many before her have tried and failed to 'stop the wheel,' she responded: "I'm not going to stop the wheel; I'm going to break the wheel." (When I wrote my previous response, I thought it was "I'm not going to reinvent the wheel," which would be more apropos to our chat, but I suppose it still works ok.) How about the second Tuesday of next week? Much less crowded... Hey now! No need for that. I don't go to church anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Mar 28, 2022 4:32:25 GMT
I haven't read all the posts. I saw one about a flight premonition, but if you surveyed everyone on the plane and half had a premonition and half didn't, what have you proven? If something happens, half predicted it. If nothing happens then half predicted it. It's a coin toss. And if you ask the question at boarding, you are planting the idea. If you ask after the flight, you are playing with memory which is unreliable. Some will remember having a bad feeling they didn't have because we easily trick ourselves. My lizard brain comment is when your mind is connecting data and drawing conclusions at the subconscious level and communicating with you through emotion. When you've subconsciously read someone's body language and get a bad vibe, or you 'know' the car at an intersection is going to pull out in front of you, the car ahead is going to abruptly change lanes, that someone you invited over isn't going to show. Despite what I said earlier, it doesn't have to be bad. Well, I highly doubt that many people had a premonition about the plane before the flight. I don't think premonitions are all that common, and I think more people would talk about them if they were. It was just notable for me because I've never had a premonition about a flight before, and then this happened. I guess my point is that anything that could be attributed to the lizard brain (subconscious cues, essentially), I personally wouldn't consider to be a genuine premonition. The real promotions are, as you say, completely irrational, and not based on any sort of evidence or logic or reason. After a quick scan of the thread, I didn't see where I said premonitions are irrational. A premonition is similar to intuition or hunches, a feeling that something will happen which can be based on subconscious clues. I don't believe I would say a premonition is irrational. It could be, but not always. Precognition is knowing the future and falls more into the supernatural realm which I consider irrational. I think the airplane incident is a premonition since you didn't predict what would happen, only had a feeling that something would. If you said, I think the engine on this plane is going to catch fire and explode, and it did, that would be a big deal.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Mar 28, 2022 8:49:53 GMT
rizdek . Okay, so maybe our views are not so similar after all. Lol. Thanks for taking the time to explain your views. I really appreciate it. But just to clarify, you said that our minds might affect the world around us. So, are you saying that premonitions might actually cause things to happen, rather than merely sensing them? I have to say, I find that pretty unlikely. I picked up 9/11, but I'm pretty sure I didn't cause it! That last part of my post was a more general discussion about why people might pick up on things from others AND/OR (in reaction to other's who claim miracles happened to them) might be able to cause things to happen. So it didn't mean people caused the things they sensed would happen anymore than seeing something happen causes it to happen. Sensing something in the 'consciousness field' (if there is such a thing) isn't someone causing it to happen.
Maybe a better example for that is the history of understanding of how vision works.
For quite a while, they didn't understand how sight worked.
web.stanford.edu/class/history13/earlysciencelab/body/eyespages/eye.htmlSo SOME thought that the only way we could see is if our eyes produced some sort of 'ray' that went out and reflected back to their eyes. But of course they eventually realized that in fact the eye was merely a receptor...picking up light waves that were everywhere in a field. So I related that to consciousness and thought perhaps our (and other animals') consciousness exists in or due to a field that our brains uses to generate the mind. So perhaps some people's brains can pick up 'vibes' or 'waves' in that 'field' that mean something to them. We know some people (and other animals) have far far better vision than some others. link So some people might be far better at interpreting these waves (receiving premonitions) than others.
|
|