Oh, I checked the interlinear greek through lexicons and concordances with cross-referencing decades ago before computers. Stick to King James and you'll do well.
King James is a good version to indoctrinate yourself to obey your rulers over God.
Oh, I checked the interlinear greek through lexicons and concordances with cross-referencing decades ago before computers. Stick to King James and you'll do well.
Can someone please explain people to me? How is it possible to disown and kill people over an idea that only exists within the mind?
If I think that Religion does no good for the world, then why do you feel so compelled to demand I praise something to which I find so detestable? This is exactly what religion does: demand constant praise despite its terrible teachings and history.
Your question was addressed to another, but I'm curious about that which you find so detestable.
If you could expand on the object of detestation, it would be interesting... Not a dissection of your detestation, but a more comprehensive elaboration.
I ask because it seems to me that there is a hierarchy of objectives in any Church - or any society vast, or small; some more 'elevated' and some less so. The concept of a purer religion, a less compromised society is of interest to me - insomuch as whether such states are possible/feasible/realistic/achievable/etc. Of course, whenever principles are compromised, or purified for that matter, there are associated costs - and these probably account for some of the inertia in societies. (2nd Amendment discussions, etc.).
I've pondered this question often...the question of religious interpretation. I believe it is different for everyone and for different denominations, synods, etcet-- the interpretation of God's Word or of God. I believe belief is as personal as any other personal choice and I believe no two people will have the exact same understanding of God or God's Word in the same way no two people will have the same description of the way an ocean looks or a stormy sky.
If you examine any bit of writing, in history or in fiction (or any government document lol) -- you will always find two people who disagree what is or is not the crux or the intended point. the questions are important, but the arguments are not.
Researchers are finding that there have been many mistakes in the translations of the Bible, as well as other religious texts...so I believe we cannot rely solely on the surviving fragments ... it comes down to personal belief. how a thing feels inside...what a soul says. There's just no black and white answer that will suit everyone. You won't know you are listening to the correct priest. it's what is between you and God that is most important. =)
I was joking earlier what I said about Catholics. I think that they wouldn't be making up a new religion. they'd be following it by following what the priest said even if one would contradict the other. That's the hierarchy they have. I'm not sure what difference it would make one way or the other if angels and Demons were real or not? Does it matter?
How do you feel about it when someone says they will pray for you? (In a nice way, not as in pray for your sinning soul).
Ok so, how can a nonreligious person believe that prayer works? It has almost everything to do with focus. Focusing ones mind, or many minds on a desired outcome I believe can actually help make that outcome more of a reality than not. One example would be the person who prays (focuses) on becoming more wealthy and because they are focused on it recognizes potential opportunities to acquire wealth where someone else unconcerned with the same outcome would not. He “prayed”, the other did not and we now have some proof that prayer works. However on a greater level I believe there is good evidence to suggest that mass prayer does in fact affect world events to some capacity. Not because a god exists but more so because focus again is placed on a desired outcome. I could argue further that because no one can give a specific description of God, its possible God exists as a combination and through the connection of human minds. Its been proven that human minds can connect through an induced magnetic field when it mirrors the earths own field. This could account for peoples feeling of connection to something larger than themselves and of which they give credit to “god.” I think NASA should be concerned with this actually because what happens when the first humans ever travel outside of the earth’s magnetic field influence?
I personally lean more toward the idea that seems to be presented best in the quantum world. Something can be affected for no other reason than it is being observed. Observation is a component of focus. Focus can lead to change.
I occasionally play around with the idea of setting out to prove things like this. It ia both mildly amusing and disturbing for me to think that if I were to prove that “prayer” does in fact change things, religious outlets would use it as a way to prove that God exists even though its not proof of that at all.
I think it would depend a lot on context for me. I've only experienced this in a nice way once. Usually it's the just-found-out-I'm-an-atheist-and-I'm-now-going-to-hell-for-not-believing-so-must-convert-you-now sort of "pray for you". The exact words were, "I know you don't believe in god, but I do. Please allow me to pray for you in hopes that things will turn out alright." I wasn't offended in the slightest. It's more of a "You're in my thoughts" "Wishing you well" "Hoping for the best" and I found it very touching that someone offered such a kindness to me.
**As an aside, I read your essay and thoroughly enjoyed how well it is written.**In terms of the Catholic Church, I find exactly what I mentioned in the essay to be detestable. The idea of there being a level of purity which almost nobody else can replicate unless they are prepared to kill for an authority backed by strictly papal and religious doctrine. It's a level of purity which not only looks very sinister, it is impossible to completely achieve to the insane standards which require it. It is a form of self-destructive fascism in-which the warrior classes are being converted into anti-secular knights that fight unbelievers and other enemies of the church. One must be clear when discussing the vast differences between purification and compromise within societies: one of them is practices every day by almost every government, the other is probably being attempted by the North Koreans to a certain degree of success but at the cost of every citizen there (from birth) amounting to nothing but property of the state; all you need to do is think about other regimes that wish to adopt a level of 'pure' ideology onto their state's population in the past as well as the present: Chairman Mao's 'Cultural Revolution': the determination to reassert 'true' Communism in China; Stalin's great purges of the 1930s that attempted to 'cleanse' pretty much everybody that was deemed not fit for such purity of ideology; Hitler's Lebensborn system to adopt a pure ideology based on preserving a pure Aryan race whilst simultaneously exterminating other races. All of these are examples of a society which had attempted to adopt a policy of purity to some extent. The Catholic Church, although not completely successful in its attempt to create a pure society, can certainly be said to have attempted it through religious doctrine.
I think it would depend a lot on context for me. I've only experienced this in a nice way once. Usually it's the just-found-out-I'm-an-atheist-and-I'm-now-going-to-hell-for-not-believing-so-must-convert-you-now sort of "pray for you". The exact words were, "I know you don't believe in god, but I do. Please allow me to pray for you in hopes that things will turn out alright." I wasn't offended in the slightest. It's more of a "You're in my thoughts" "Wishing you well" "Hoping for the best" and I found it very touching that someone offered such a kindness to me.