I feel also that it is a pity that treachery, deception, betrayal, conquest, warfare, weaponry, and oppression seemed to have been so successful as global expansion tactics. It could be said that they were the winning strategies, while those whose cultures focussed on acceptance, tolerance, giving, etc. Like the people of the potlatch to cite a local example, which is a ceremony to praise the act of giving, but then the potlatch was banned by the new rulers, the invading hordes of savage, murderous, barbaric, pillaging Vikings , err, ......no, I mean European settlers.

Originally posted by spamandham
I did not claim that all Christians are incapable of separating religion and politics, although my limited experience does suggest most are.

One need merely observe that demands to adopt an official religious position in the US have entirely come from those advocating secularism.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Originally posted by roger_pearse
One need merely observe that demands to adopt an official religious position in the US have entirely come from those advocating secularism.
Roger Pearse

Maybe so, but... it is important to distinguish the call for church/state separation is not because people are not believers. The majority of those in favour are religious, and they just want equality. No one should appear to be favoured by the state, not atheists, nor theists.

I think that world religions are like spokes of a broken wheel someone has thrown on the garbage dump and these spokes all lying round dreaming of their memories of when they were iron ore in the mountain except they remember "being" the mountain and they remember it's glory and majesty and they fight among themselves who of them really was the mountain and they all want to get back to being the mountain to the exclusion of all others.
What they FORGET is that the mountain owes it's majesty and glory to it's unity of diversity. With all it's layers of rocks and minerals and vegitation and fauna and let's not forget the eagle who nests on it's peak.
God is the unity of spirit that accepts and cherishes the greatest diversity of souls.
All souls who accept others will unite in this spirit.
There is only one path the path of total love and acceptance of all things (the many paths) this narrow path runs as a red tape through all broader paths.
The spokes on the garbage dump need to get together see if they can find the axis and form a wheel, or die of impotence.
They want to be King but the King just IS.
Jezus tried to tell us this but they tried in turn to make him just another spoke on the garbage tip. He was too good a hakker though.
LOL.

One love, one heart, let's get together and feel allright. B. Marley
All you need is love. Lennon/McCartney
Omnia Vincit Amor.
Love thine enemy as thine self. Jesus
Give me love, give me life, give me peace on earth. G. Harrison
War is over if you want it. Lennon/Ono
'An eye for an eye will make the world blind." Gandhi
"Love and compassion are necessities, not luxuries. Without them humanity cannot survive."
--Dalai Lama

I just had to cite some quotes I agree with that support the last post.
If we don't stop this fighting, soon, we're done for,( I actually, to be honest, feel strongly that its way too late anyway...) But that is the only possible way we can go on for any length of time.

Originally posted by fourddream
All souls who accept others will unite in this spirit.
There is only one path the path of total love and acceptance of all things (the many paths) this narrow path runs as a red tape through all broader paths.

Jezus tried to tell us this but they tried in turn to make him just another spoke on the garbage tip.

Hm, let's see what Christ says then. "I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is completed! Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law." - Luke 12:49

"If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world." - John 15:18

Doesn't sound like the voice of accepting all things.



[edit on 24-1-2006 by saint4God]

[edit on 24-1-2006 by saint4God]

Jezus spoke in parable because he was a hakker trying to convey infrmation we need today. When he spoke of transformation or assension he spoke in parable, the powers that be do not want us to know that he and many others who died (long list) to get this message to US NOW.
We have latent powers which we can develop and with them we can win back our world, but first we have to rise above the effects of the matrix (the brainwashing through a hi jacked media). This has seriously disabled our natural defences which is in our unity of spirit, our collective sub concious but the natural one not the "fox mentality" one it's been replaced with.
It is crucial to our survival thatwe realize this and if enough do conciously connect to this spirit in time we would have a start cable releasing true POWER from the source.
All we see and hear is energy in motion but all energy comes from a power source and it is the ONLY TRUE POWER. It is in us, each of us, we just need connect in that knowledge and the more who "develop" the easier it becomes for others to do the same as it as the knowledge seeps deeper into the subconcious of us all that we share.

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by fourddream
All souls who accept others will unite in this spirit.
There is only one path the path of total love and acceptance of all things (the many paths) this narrow path runs as a red tape through all broader paths.

Jezus tried to tell us this but they tried in turn to make him just another spoke on the garbage tip.

Hm, let's see what Christ says then. "I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is completed! Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law." - Luke 12:49

"If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world." - John 15:18

Doesn't sound like the voice of accepting all things.



[edit on 24-1-2006 by saint4God]

[edit on 24-1-2006 by saint4God]

What you describe here is the seperating of the bocks from the lambs (or the child from the placenta) Soon there will be no middle ground and you'll be part of one or the other. The fire brings about this seperation.
If you run to get on the winning side you gonna find yourself part of the placenta.
Who will try to save their lives in those days will lose it and who is prepared to lose it will gain true life.

Who accepts all things will always eventually be accepted by all

Who accepts will be accepted
who judges will be judged
who forgives will be forgiven
who loves will be loved
who sees will be seen
who cares cared for
etc etc ,the two edged sword.

[edit on 24-1-2006 by fourddream]

Male and Female
etc. I agree.
And I also suspect there is great truth in the saying, the first shall be last and the last shall be first.
The more you learn, the less you know.
The price of life is death.
The soft can destroy the hard, like water wears down rock.
The small, and tender can live while the large and hard die. A hurricane can kill a mighty oak, while a flower lives.
The most real things are those we cannot see.

Originally posted by fourddream
Who accepts all things will always eventually be accepted by all

What is the basis for this statement?

Heaven is by definition inclusive and harmonic.
Unity is only possible in acceptance.
A devided house is just that, a devided house.
There is the exclusive spirit which neither respects nor tolerates the existance of others.
Who are you that one should require your tolerence when one has God to thank for their existance.
In the end we judge ourselves when we choose to enter the Kingdom or don't for spite of others that do.
A.

Originally posted by fourddream
Heaven is by definition inclusive and harmonic.
Unity is only possible in acceptance.
A devided house is just that, a devided house.
There is the exclusive spirit which neither respects nor tolerates the existance of others.
Who are you that one should require your tolerence when one has God to thank for their existance.
In the end we judge ourselves when we choose to enter the Kingdom or don't for spite of others that do.
A.

Thanks for not answering the question...

BlackGuardXIII:

"Male and Female"


Ah yes, the basic model for dualism ... I agree - LCKob



BlackGuardXIII:

"And I also suspect there is great truth in the saying, the first shall be last and the last shall be first."


I am thinking this one underscores the notion of context? ... depending on how one looks at a particular situatation ... the "first" can be considered "last" and the reverse. - LCKob



BlackGuardXIII:

"The more you learn, the less you know."


Ahh ... now this one I definitely feel a personal ring of truth - LCKob


BlackGuardXIII:

"The price of life is death."


Hmmmmm ... I think I get the intent ... but IMO I think of death as a part of life ... or perhaps the flipsides of a coin ... opposing, yet integrally and fundementally linked with no intrinsic valuation bias. ... not that I don't value life more than death haha ... merely that as opposing and moderating forces, life and death should be placed within the same evaluative context - LCKob



BlackGuardXIII:

The soft can destroy the hard, like water wears down rock.

The small, and tender can live while the large and hard die. A hurricane can kill a mighty oak, while a flower lives.

Two of my favorites ... LCKob



BlackguardXII:

The most real things are those we cannot see.

... such as Love? I agree in the context of "things felt" as opposed to "things seen". ... Semantics to be sure, but if taken out of context, such a sentiment would be diametrically opposed to my take on SM ...

... which would counter with (admittingly far less aesthetic )

Do not discount the possibility of things that cannot be disproven. - LCKob



[edit on 25-1-2006 by LCKob]

Are you saying that the above are the word of God? I don't get the relevancy to this thread.

Originally posted by saint4God
Are you saying that the above are the word of God? I don't get the relevancy to this thread.

... who are you asking? Fourddream?, (me)LCkob?, BlackguardXIII?



[edit on 25-1-2006 by LCKob]

Originally posted by LCKob
... who are you asking? Fordream?, (me)LCkob?, BlackguardXIII?

If the shoe fits.

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by LCKob
... who are you asking? Fordream?, (me)LCkob?, BlackguardXIII?

If the shoe fits.

well, I am asking are you giving me a shoe to try on?

Just as you asked Fourddream to clarify his response?

LCKob

You are probably right, and it wasn't specifically about the title of the thread. So, is it the word of God?
Yes and no. Maybe it was spoken by God, but it would have had to been dictated to a person, and whenever there is a transcription from one source to another, there is a chance of mistakes.

Originally posted by LCKob
well, I am asking are you giving me a shoe to try on?

Sorry, didn't mean to be vague. It seems there are a lot of comments and affirmation to fourdream's philosophical snippets. Being that we're talking (or supposed to be talking) about the Bible and whether or not it is the word of God, I was wondering how these seemingly personal philophies have any bearing on the discussion. The only way I could think that they do, is if someone claims that their personal philosophy (or whatever source they're using) IS the word of God and therefore the Bible, being contradictory to personal assessment, is not. BlackGuard just brought up a good point in relation to that. I'd like to take it a step furter to ask: If what fourdream or the echos states this is the case, then how would they be error-free versus the 50+ books over thousands of years who had in fact written down their hearing of God's words?

All of what I said though does not take into consideration that God is alive and present now and can be communicated with.

Originally posted by LCKob
Just as you asked Fourddream to clarify his response?

LCKob

Sure, I think that's fair and hoped this helped.

[edit on 25-1-2006 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by LCKob
well, I am asking are you giving me a shoe to try on?

Sorry, didn't mean to be vague. It seems there are a lot of comments and affirmation to fourdream's philosophical snippets. Being that we're talking (or supposed to be talking) about the Bible and whether or not it is the word of God, I was wondering how these seemingly personal philophies have any bearing on the discussion. The only way I could think that they do, is if someone claims that their personal philosophy (or whatever source they're using) IS the word of God and therefore the Bible, being contradictory to personal assessment, is not. BlackGuard just brought up a good point in relation to that. I'd like to take it a step furter to ask: If what fourdream or the echos states this is the case, then how would they be error-free versus the 50+ books over thousands of years who had in fact written down their hearing of God's words?

All of what I said though does not take into consideration that God is alive and present now and can be communicatd with.

Originally posted by LCKob
Just as you asked Fourddream to clarify his response?

LCKob

Sure, I think that's fair and hoped this helped.

[edit on 25-1-2006 by saint4God]

No problem .. the promotion of clarity is almost always to the good ..

Well my position in how it all relates to the thread is of course based upon my stance ... which is this ... I responed to BGXIII in support to the notion of what I would consider words of wisdom irrespective of the source or inspiration. I had hoped to make the additional point or to promote the view by implication that words of wisdom are at the very least that ... valued pieces of timely advice (which have much intrinsic value period) With this as the context, IMO, the bible contains much in the way of valuable words of wisdom (irrespective of their ultimate veracity ... can it be absolutely proved?)

Thus, my contention is that the Bible (and other religious Compendiums) ... should be respected for the promotion of its contained wisdoms ... as a baseline, and as to its absolute validity/veracity in total? ... until proven beyond a doubt, any additional aspect is then left to each individual in support of their valid opinion

This is how I see the logical link to the title of this thread:

"The bible is not the word of god"

LCKob


[edit on 25-1-2006 by LCKob]