The Golden Rule is Truth (atheism, beliefs, belief, principle)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I get called naive a lot, especially on CD politics and on TikTok, so it is probably true.
But maybe even if you are correct in what you are saying, we are all one whether we all realize it or not.
I've ALWAYS been able to get help from strangers when needed. Probably because I try to be honest, caring, smiling, and have paid attention to doing friendly cues so people feel good. So in return I always try to be friendly to strangers in need.
Look, no one is saying that oneness would be a bad thing...although it's rather egotistical for you folks to assume that that oneness would be the brand you push.
How about oneness in that everyone becomes an atheist and that we improve world society through secularism?
I think one could make a pretty good argument that the concept of communism was pushing a form of oneness.
Why does it have to be your brand of oneness? Why do people who think differently than you folks have to give up their beliefs to join your oneness?
Look, no one is saying that oneness would be a bad thing...although it's rather egotistical for you folks to assume that that oneness would be the brand you push.
How about oneness in that everyone becomes an atheist and that we improve world society through secularism?
I think one could make a pretty good argument that the concept of communism was pushing a form of oneness.
Why does it have to be your brand of oneness? Why do people who think differently than you folks have to give up their beliefs to join your oneness?
"I cannot tell you how to experience God. I can only tell you how I experience God."
That's a Quaker saying that's been quoted here many times. (Mostly by me because I like it, lol.) How then do you translate that into thinking that she wants it to be her brand of oneness that everyone else must adopt?
It sounds to me as if Friends think exactly the opposite of that. I find them to be the most open and accepting of other religions. Even more than Episcopalians!
"I cannot tell you how to experience God. I can only tell you how I experience God."
That's a Quaker saying that's been quoted here many times. (Mostly by me because I like it, lol.) How then do you translate that into thinking that she wants it to be her brand of oneness that everyone else must adopt?
It sounds to me as if Friends think exactly the opposite of that. I find them to be the most open and accepting of other religions. Even more than Episcopalians!
I don't know a lot about her denomination, but I do like that quotation.
Three of the four churches were Baptist, Methodist, and Presbyterian. The fourth was Episcopal (which, coincidentally, my paternal grandfather helped put on the slate roof).
I grew up in that Methodist church, have been to a Presbyterian church a very few times, and have even been to a Baptist church a few times. I would sit in each of those churches (later in other places) and think to myself: the service is not so terribly different; the the basic beliefs are not so terribly different. It always seemed like a Rodney King moment to me. Why do they have to build these expensive grand churches that basically teach the same thing, and instead really act like Christian brothers and worship together. And yet, except for a once a year "show-ceremony" they could not worship together.
If we can't even get those 3 denominations to worship together, why would we believe we could add in Mormons, Catholics, Buddhists, Sikhs, witch covens, voodoo-ists (is that a word), Muslims, JWs, Raelians, Panawavians, and thousands of other religious sects together in oneness? Because as we have seen with the JWs and those who are adamantly against Mormons, not to mention Muslim...they all insist they have the right religion and that the other religions are wrong. I'm trying to think of the last 70 years of my lifetime which religions have combined; I can't think of any...but I can think of some which have splintered.
Three of the four churches were Baptist, Methodist, and Presbyterian. The fourth was Episcopal (which, coincidentally, my paternal grandfather helped put on the slate roof).
I grew up in that Methodist church, have been to a Presbyterian church a very few times, and have even been to a Baptist church a few times. I would sit in each of those churches (later in other places) and think to myself: the service is not so terribly different; the the basic beliefs are not so terribly different. It always seemed like a Rodney King moment to me. Why do they have to build these expensive grand churches that basically teach the same thing, and instead really act like Christian brothers and worship together. And yet, except for a once a year "show-ceremony" they could not worship together.
If we can't even get those 3 denominations to worship together, why would we believe we could add in Mormons, Catholics, Buddhists, Sikhs, witch covens, voodoo-ists (is that a word), Muslims, JWs, Raelians, Panawavians, and thousands of other religious sects together in oneness? Because as we have seen with the JWs and those who are adamantly against Mormons, not to mention Muslim...they all insist they have the right religion and that the other religions are wrong. I'm trying to think of the last 70 years of my lifetime which religions have combined; I can't think of any...but I can think of some which have splintered.
That goes back to my earlier statement that any "Oneness", if you want to call it that, works among individuals and small groups of people who choose that path, but not on an organized, corporate basis.
I can one-up your denomination quandary. I grew up in the RCA--Reformed Church of America, a descendant of the Dutch Reformed Church. There were two churches of that denomination in my town of fewer than 7000 people. Back to THAT in a minute.
There were also two CRC churches in town--The Christian Reformed Church, also a descendent of the Dutch Reformed Church. To this day, I am unclear as to the difference, but they split over some obscure bit of theology, and both knew the other Church was WRONG.
Back to the two RCA churches, literally half a block from each other. The split there happened at the start of the 20th century. You see, services were held in Dutch at the older church, which of course everyone knew was the language spoken in Heaven. But the younger, American-born generation wanted services in English, so they broke off and built their own church. By the time my parents met and married in the 1940s, all services were in English. My mother left the one church and joined my father's.
On Thanksgiving Eve, the RCA and CRC churches would have a joint service. Didn't invite the Methodists or Catholics, who also had churches in town, or those people from Gospel Hall, where all the women appeared to be required to wear funny hats. Never knew much about them.
That goes back to my earlier statement that any "Oneness", if you want to call it that, works among individuals and small groups of people who choose that path, but not on an organized, corporate basis.
I can one-up your denomination quandary. I grew up in the RCA--Reformed Church of America, a descendant of the Dutch Reformed Church. There were two churches of that denomination in my town of fewer than 7000 people. Back to THAT in a minute.
There were also two CRC churches in town--The Christian Reformed Church, also a descendent of the Dutch Reformed Church. To this day, I am unclear as to the difference, but they split over some obscure bit of theology, and both knew the other Church was WRONG.
Back to the two RCA churches, literally half a block from each other. The split there happened at the start of the 20th century. You see, services were held in Dutch at the older church, which of course everyone knew was the language spoken in Heaven. But the younger, American-born generation wanted services in English, so they broke off and built their own church. By the time my parents met and married in the 1940s, all services were in English. My mother left the one church and joined my father's.
On Thanksgiving Eve, the RCA and CRC churches would have a joint service. Didn't invite the Methodists or Catholics, who also had churches in town, or those people from Gospel Hall, where all the women appeared to be required to wear funny hats. Never knew much about them.
And...at least in my hometown...that once a year when they would hold a joint service...fewer would attend the joint service than any of the three churches individually. The ministers had the right idea...the faithfulness not so much.
Jesus replaced the OT Golden Rule (Leviticus 19:18) with his New Commandment found at John 13:34-35.
We are now to have the same self-sacrificing love for others as Jesus has.
In other words, we are now to love neighbor MORE than self, more than the Golden Rule.
Three of the four churches were Baptist, Methodist, and Presbyterian. The fourth was Episcopal (which, coincidentally, my paternal grandfather helped put on the slate roof).
I grew up in that Methodist church, have been to a Presbyterian church a very few times, and have even been to a Baptist church a few times. I would sit in each of those churches (later in other places) and think to myself: the service is not so terribly different; the the basic beliefs are not so terribly different. It always seemed like a Rodney King moment to me. Why do they have to build these expensive grand churches that basically teach the same thing, and instead really act like Christian brothers and worship together. And yet, except for a once a year "show-ceremony" they could not worship together.
If we can't even get those 3 denominations to worship together, why would we believe we could add in Mormons, Catholics, Buddhists, Sikhs, witch covens, voodoo-ists (is that a word), Muslims, JWs, Raelians, Panawavians, and thousands of other religious sects together in oneness? Because as we have seen with the JWs and those who are adamantly against Mormons, not to mention Muslim...they all insist they have the right religion and that the other religions are wrong. I'm trying to think of the last 70 years of my lifetime which religions have combined; I can't think of any...but I can think of some which have splintered.
The splintering has ironically been prophesied as the signature of the last and final religion (spiritual kingdom) by Daniel in the Bible. I have previously discussed this prophecy while noting that all religions have to be referring to the ONE and only God as Quaker Baker suggests. Our differences do NOT determine Reality, they just interpret it. Our beliefs are and can be all over the map without affecting what actually IS. But your aversion to Christinaity may just be misplaced if my interpretation of Daniel is correct, Phet. Of course, I believe that the dogma will have to be reinterpreted to agree more with MY version of Christ.
IMO, genuine beliefs in God would all have the same (and ONLY) source of inspiration so the essentials should be very similar. Culture, personal and social understanding will necessarily color the details and the explanations. Gerald Berry has noted that,
. . . It is an interesting pastime to trace parallels in the beliefs of peoples who had no outside contact with each other. These parallels seem to indicate that certain things are basic, one might almost say innate, in the make-up of humankind.
I have found more than adequate support in the "spiritual fossil record" for this general idea of a universal source for religious beliefs. I even found what I believe could be significant passages in the Bible in Daniel.
The prophecy of Daniel is repeatedly referred to in discussions of the end days . . . and one of Daniel's dreams about the four beasts is controversial becasue it uses a secular historical bias instead fo a spiritual perspective for interpretation. The Bible is first and foremost a spiritual tome. Our consciousnesses are on a spiritual quest, not a secular one.
Using Daniel as prophesy . . . you would have to exclude Babylon, Persia, Greece and Rome from contention as the beasts (kingdoms) because despite its successes Rome did NOT devour the whole earth (and the world has not ended). Since no other "kingdom" has yet dominated the world, the vision must refer to things unfulfilled so no reasonable symbolic relationships could be attached to any other secular kingdoms.
Secular contemporaneous historical analysis is a common misuse of scriptures. Scriptures are inspirations recorded primarily to aid our consciousnesses in understanding God and our ultimate purpose . . . not to provide a historical or anthropological description of our past! We shouldn�t be looking for the secular significance of what is written. We should always seek out the spiritual significance . . . since scripture is dedicated to revelations of religious significance rather than secular significance.
It was quite easy to draw symbolic spiritual connections to Daniel�s dreams using the religious faiths that have emerged and persist even to this day.
Daniel 7 (Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition)
From Daniel 7:2, the origin of the beasts,
. . . And behold the four winds of heaven strove upon the great sea. And four great beasts, different one from another, came up out of the sea.
Thus, the origin of the beasts is heaven, a logical source of religious beliefs.
From Daniel 7:4,
. . . The first was like a lioness and had the wings of an eagle: I beheld till her wings were plucked off and she was lifted up from the earth, and stood upon her feet as a man, and the heart of a man was given to her.
This could be a reference to Judaism (the lion of Juda) from whom the wings of eternity were plucked and the heart of Jesus was given to her in crucifixion.
From Daniel 7:5,
. . . and behold another beast like a bear stood up on one side: and there were three rows in the mouth thereof, and in the teeth thereof, and thus they said to it: Arise, devour much flesh.
This is likely a reference to Islam, (the bear of Persia) and the rows of teeth are the offshoots of it. Indeed, the holy war or Jihad that established Islam "devoured much flesh."
From Daniel 7:6,
. . . After this I beheld, and lo, another like a leopard, and it had upon it four wings as of a fowl, and the beast had four heads, and power was given to it.
The four heads immediately bring to mind Brahmanism (the leopard of India). Originally five heads were assigned to Brahma, but one was destroyed by Siva. The four heads symbolize the main offshoots of it. The power that was given to it was probably the Taoist philosophy, or the way of life which stresses charity. The wings most likely symbolize the capability of each offshoot for flight into heaven.
From Daniel 7:7,
. . . After this I beheld in the vision of the night, and lo, a fourth beast, terrible and wonderful, and exceeding strong, it had great iron teeth, eating and breaking in pieces, and treading down the rest with its feet.
Do you recognize this "splintering" and effort to dominate in Christianity, (the Iron of the industrial revolution)?? The eating and breaking in pieces could signify the splitting into various "Protestant" sects that it is undergoing during its spread throughout the world.
From Daniel 7:23,
. . . The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom on earth which shall be greater than all the kingdoms and shall devour the whole earth. . . Hitherto is the end of the Word.
The phrase "end of the Word," since the Word is God (John 1:1), would seem to further corroborate this general line of interpretation. Since the fourth beast is believed to be the Christian system which seems to have special significance, e.g. "shall devour the whole earth." Of course, this interpretation rests on my conviction that the inspiration of God's consciousness has been the source of these prophecies.
I get called naive a lot, especially on CD politics and on TikTok, so it is probably true.
But maybe even if you are correct in what you are saying, we are all one whether we all realize it or not.
I've ALWAYS been able to get help from strangers when needed. Probably because I try to be honest, caring, smiling, and have paid attention to doing friendly cues so people feel good. So in return I always try to be friendly to strangers in need.
Do not ever attempt to change as you come across much like you describe yourself.
I think the other poster was just pointing out how naive you are, but that you are is a hood thing. I`ve always loved your posts
Last edited by badlander; 09-06-2022 at 02:35 PM..
Reason: Stupid tablet
Hm you noticed that too? Seems slightly like hypocrisy and indecisiveness about what one really might believe, not believe or both.
Cb you're giving us mumbo-jumbo, your last two posts that I read haven't really been coherent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cb2008
NS, just one advice. Don’t get misled by Phet. Just read my post with more care. Quote it if you need any clarification.
Not that I need advice, but you gave it your best shot. Phetaroi has done nothing but call out posters who speak out of both sides of their mouths. I think I said that to you before. I read your post with plenty of "care". And I quoted. Where's the clarification? Clarification of what? I heard they were sending people to the moon. Are you one of them? I need clarification.
I get called naive a lot, especially on CD politics and on TikTok, so it is probably true.
But maybe even if you are correct in what you are saying, we are all one whether we all realize it or not.
I've ALWAYS been able to get help from strangers when needed. Probably because I try to be honest, caring, smiling, and have paid attention to doing friendly cues so people feel good. So in return I always try to be friendly to strangers in need.
I don't buy into the we're all one thing but like I said before, it's just not realistic. I know you mean spiritually but atheists don't agree with that. We're talking reality here and history teaches us that it's impossible for the world to be one. It's not going to happen. Ever.
You sound like a really nice person, sort of like me. I had been naive my whole life, until I became an atheist. I may still be somewhat of a pushover but I am no longer naive. Let's just say that losing my religion helped me get my life back and it finally explained why I rebelled against religion at such a young age.
Until I became a fanatical fundamentalist because I was trying to hold on. That didn't last long. It felt hypocritical and I was here proselytizing like a crazy person, doing more harm than good. I was lying to myself and to everyone else. Now, I just half lie about being an atheist. Got to keep the peace.
I was living a big ol' lie. So what if indoctrination is impossible to overcome? It's not, I did it. Except for that nagging afterlife thing. But I believe I have conquered that. Please be careful with helping strangers. It's very dangerous these days. Some prey on a kind face and a good heart. Sad but true.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I find them to be the most open and accepting of other religions. Even more than Episcopalians! 
