Yeah, we speak english, to use the correct words in the correct manner they need to be defined and pronounced... That's what the dictionary is, the book so we aren't just speaking random words or sounds at each other... There is not "connecting the dots", religion is a word, that word has a meaning...its that simple... Just like every other word used in my post and your post.... And paranoria can be of something completely fake, like people thinking people are coming in through the roof or other dumb shit...its not happening...
For that i would pick the word insanity, but that's judgemental, i'll leave that to my father. In the end, word's are just word's, alot of people know how to talk but action's speak louder then word's. And to be honest i dont have much with things that men thought of or made. Like men made law's, i only obey to god's law's, or try to.
If the ''authority'' follow's god's law's then yes. If the ''authority'' set's an example of doing good, then yes.
The word you are looking for is theism. Religion is a structured belief system, not necessarily belief in god (buddhism for example) If you were correct it would be called areligionism not atheism.
Romans 13 is a very good example for why i think the Christians cannot claim the Bible is both the word of God and Jesus represented this God. Jesus was all about challenging the authorities, then Romans says we should follow authorities. The whole point of free will is that we are free and have no authorities. Just doesnt add up.
Religion is still defined as such, people post it all the time but the word is still defined as belief in god or gods... Its why atheism isn't a religion and a disbelief is not a belief... **shrugs** I didn't define them but that's how its presented to us
I also think it screams that its written by man... Also god in the OT had beef with a leader and caused the plagues...so even he wasn't for all leaders... And romans doesn't say only follow the good ones, it says follow them ALL because if they are in power, god put them in power... Jus screams man made Sent from my LGL75C using Grasscity Forum mobile app
Atheism isnt a religion but some religions are atheist. Theism isnt a religion but some (most) religion are theistic.
Yea that just doesnt jive. Knowing what Jesus claimed and what the Bible says, it leads me to believe it was tampered with after Jesus' time. If it read to him like it reads now he would have called for a book burning.
Christ said, not to listen/follow priests, politician's and lawyer's (in the bible words for these 3 are different). Judge a man by the fruit he bears (lawfully judging). A person with wickedness/evil in he's heart will never bear good fruit. Why would one ever follow that? A man know's what is right, if you follow the guidance you receive. As for romans 13.. Paul is obviously making an urgent appeal to people to obey The Law (God's Law, not man's legislation) and the people who are charged with administering it. Christ said, i am the way. He challanged evil authority's, so will i, and with 100% faith, there is no one that can stop me. I will never follow a system based on wicked believe's from a couple of askhenazi jew's.
All men have wickedness and evil in their heart, isnt that the point of redemption? Also, "people who are charged with administering" implies a hierarchy, which Jesus also fought against, hence the pulling down of the curtain.
Authority's charged with administering of god's law, setting an good example. Then Jesus would be fighting against god, who is above all. Wich wasn't the case. Where do you get that from, that he fought against hierarchy's?
It's quite odd for somebody who supposedly doesn't believe in authorities to proclaim themselves the 'Son of God', huh?
My point was that Jesus considered himself as an authority, in that he had/thought he had special wisdom to impart by virtue of him being the 'Son of God'.
1) I agree that one of the worst things the human mind can do is take words too seriously. However that doesn't stop us intelligent people from coming to conclusions. It's not hard, try it! The word "Universe" may be new, yes. But the concept of Unity is not. Marcus Aurelius, one of the 5 good emperors: "Constantly regard the universe as one living being, having one substance and one soul; and observe how all things have reference to one perception, the perception of this one living being; and how all things act with one movement; and how all things are the cooperating causes of all things which exist; observe too the continuous spinning of the thread and the structure of the web." Yes you can consider the "parts" of 1 thing as "separate", but that's only within the context of the "1 thing". AGAIN, context is everything. 2) ACTUALLY, the concept of Unity barely exists within our spatio-temporal experience. We have the concept of "Unity", but even that has an opposite: "not Unity". Unity is that thing which has no opposite, and thus we can't put that into words. Every word is a concept, and thus has an opposite. Also btw I don't consider any Bible verse as evidence........ 3) I will definitely check those out. But you should know that the school you suggested, "Dvaita", means dualism. The school of "Advaita" means "Non-dual". It's the closest we can get to the concept of "Unity". I don't know if I've explained my position prior to this, but I believe that Duality is secretly Unity. That Dualistic concepts define themselves based on their opposite, and thus Dualisms only exist as 50% of a 100% equation. Thus, I would completely disagree with any school that labels themselves as "Dvaita"...................... 4) No offense, but I would then consider you and Gottfried Leibniz very naive. Fractals, to me, are the complete opposite concept as the Christian-Judeo Model. Worlds within worlds, with nothing external imposing upon it. Self-sustaining, "Ziran" as the Daoists call it. 5) Again, words (concepts) are not to be equated with the totality of reality. And AGAIN, context is completely key here. Cause and effect are ONLY different in context. Energetically, the same system that is the cause IS the effect. Literally. I would totally be nice and sympathetic to Christians, and I would totally treat them as the naive organisms they are: if it weren't for the simple fact that they FUCK up the Earth. Think about it. If you believed you had another home waiting for you, you wouldn't care to take care of THIS home. Thus is evidenced in the corporate reign of George Bush. He repealed the New Source Rule, which now kills 18,000 Americans per year according to the EPA's website. I used to want to be nice to naive people. Now I am REALLY sick of religious people, because they're fucking up our Earth. I have no tolerance for that. Stupidity is understandable. Senseless violence is not.