|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Feb 18, 2016 13:04:57 GMT -5
Yep! The Children of Israel surely did live in a violent world!
That is exactly why they created THEIR "god" as a god of war.
Problem is, -people today are trying to re-create HIM as a loving "god!"
That is the reason for so much dissonance in their belief system.
It puts their own beliefs at loggerheads with each other.
There is no evidence for your statement that the Children of Israel "created" their God. Perhaps you mean "evolved," like over millions or billions of years? People need to 'seek' the living God. Many seek amiss. Our beliefs are to be in line with what God teaches us, not according to what we want it to be, or are influenced by outside the teaching of the Holy Spirit. Do you mean a living God like the Dalai Lama?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2016 15:54:59 GMT -5
There is no evidence for your statement that the Children of Israel "created" their God. Perhaps you mean "evolved," like over millions or billions of years? People need to 'seek' the living God. Many seek amiss. Our beliefs are to be in line with what God teaches us, not according to what we want it to be, or are influenced by outside the teaching of the Holy Spirit. Do you mean a living God like the Dalai Lama? There is only one living God. The rest are figments of man's imagination.
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Feb 18, 2016 16:23:12 GMT -5
There is no evidence for your statement that the Children of Israel "created" their God. Perhaps you mean "evolved," like over millions or billions of years? People need to 'seek' the living God. Many seek amiss. Our beliefs are to be in line with what God teaches us, not according to what we want it to be, or are influenced by outside the teaching of the Holy Spirit. Do you mean a living God like the Dalai Lama? The Dalai Lama? ! People can make Gods of anything, including "science", "facts" and "rational thought". We see it clearly in everyone else, almost never in ourselves.
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Feb 18, 2016 17:47:54 GMT -5
Do you mean a living God like the Dalai Lama? There is only one living God. The rest are figments of man's imagination. I've seen the Dalai Lama and he said he was a God. You have not seen your God and you tell me he is a God. Got me puzzled on the logic of that.
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Feb 18, 2016 17:48:41 GMT -5
Do you mean a living God like the Dalai Lama? The Dalai Lama? ! People can make Gods of anything, including "science", "facts" and "rational thought". We see it clearly in everyone else, almost never in ourselves. Including the Hebrew people who have written a collection of books about there God.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 18, 2016 18:18:07 GMT -5
Do you mean a living God like the Dalai Lama? The Dalai Lama????! People can make Gods of anything, including "science", "facts" and "rational thought". We see it clearly in everyone else, almost never in ourselves. Might be a good point to define your understanding of the word 'god'. Using the common definitions: God 1. (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. 2. (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.How would one go about making facts or science into anything that would fit either of these definitions?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 18, 2016 18:58:22 GMT -5
Why should there be any dissonance there for me?
Why should my sons be the only ones that have to go to war but not my daughter?
Why would you expect only your sons, -if you have any sons, -but not your daughter if you have a daughter ?
Would you explain why you seem to hold the opinion that you do concerning your position?
PS: definition of cognitive dissonance:
"psychological conflict resulting from incongruous beliefs and attitudes held simultaneously."
One of many faults i have is, as a father of a daughter and husband of a wife, feeling a tesponsibility to protect them from harm. Of course, i want the protection for my sons also, but not in exactlybthe same way. I appreciated the honesty of some feminist activists who admitted in themselves that although they were in support of equality, they felt reserved about forcing their girls to war. Equal but not the same. Dissonance is probably a part of human reality, whether we recognize it or not? Alvin Some more exqmples would be an "enviromentalist" driving a car , or animal lover eating a hamburger or even plants .... Not really possible to avoid cognitive dissonance. It just happens and some experts consider it essential for ecistence. Would you please name those "feminist activists?"
Actually, feminists have worked for women in the military to be able to be in all positions in the military including combat positions.
The feminists whom I know believe in equality & fairness for all people. My feminist friends most often are working not just gender equality & fairness, but also equality and fairness race and in the labor movement, both for men & women.
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Feb 18, 2016 20:15:22 GMT -5
I don't recall any of the names in the article I was browsing , but not difficult to find names of feminists who struggle with the question. Good chance I was somehow politically incorrect in using the term "activist", but for sure they were feminists. Here's one name most of us will recognize , and I think qualifies as a feminist, if not "feminist activist". Hillary Clinton- "Hillary Clinton, who claims to support gender equality, declined on Wednesday to say that women should be automatically registered for the draft through Selective Service when they turn 18, as men are required to do....“Do you have think women should also have to register for Selective Service like men?” Cooper asked Clinton..... The former secretary of state avoided weighing in and offered a jumbled response. “I have to think about whether it’s necessary to go as far as our military officers are recommending,” Clinton responded Alvin Read more: dailycaller.com/2016/02/03/hillary-clinton-alleged-feminist-declines-to-back-generals-who-say-women-should-register-for-the-draft/#ixzz40ZXKRd10
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2016 21:04:35 GMT -5
I'd go one further. If a person does not register for the Selective Service (not required or chooses otherwise), then they are permanently ineligible to vote.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 18, 2016 23:14:20 GMT -5
I'd go one further. If a person does not register for the Selective Service (not required or chooses otherwise), then they are permanently ineligible to vote. This is incorrect. The selective service is federal and voting is controlled by the states. Although failing to register for selective service is a felony no one has been prosecuted since the mid 1980s so it has become somewhat of a paper tiger. In any case, most states restore suffrage once a sentence has been completed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2016 23:20:38 GMT -5
I'd go one further. If a person does not register for the Selective Service (not required or chooses otherwise), then they are permanently ineligible to vote. This is incorrect. The selective service is federal and voting is controlled by the states. Although failing to register for selective service is a felony no one has been prosecuted since the mid 1980s so it has become somewhat of a paper tiger. In any case, most states restore suffrage once a sentence has been completed. My post wasn't totally clear. I meant that I would like restrict voting to only those people who have registered in the Selective Service. So, if you are a person who never had to register because of X, Y, Z, then you are barred from voting. The idea is that you don't get political voice if you aren't willing to give your life to protect the state.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 18, 2016 23:28:36 GMT -5
This is incorrect. The selective service is federal and voting is controlled by the states. Although failing to register for selective service is a felony no one has been prosecuted since the mid 1980s so it has become somewhat of a paper tiger. In any case, most states restore suffrage once a sentence has been completed. My post wasn't totally clear. I meant that I would like restrict voting to only those people who have registered in the Selective Service. So, if you are a person who never had to register because of X, Y, Z, then you are barred from voting. The idea is that you don't get political voice if you aren't willing to give your life to protect the state. It would seem that disenfranchisement for any reason is a dangerous precedent.
|
|
|
Post by joanna on Feb 18, 2016 23:55:11 GMT -5
Hello @ram, This has your name on it
|
|
|
Post by joanna on Feb 19, 2016 0:05:12 GMT -5
About this prayer habit. I experience an innate cringing response to 'extreme swearing', probably due to the remnants of a professing upbringing, however I find the tendency for those who believe in the god of Abraham to excuse his cruel and unjust behavior way more repulsive so the video's content is thought-provoking despite the swearing.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 19, 2016 0:34:15 GMT -5
I'd go one further. If a person does not register for the Selective Service (not required or chooses otherwise), then they are permanently ineligible to vote. So, -in other words you are saying that you have to fight, an action which would be against the very freedom that you are supposed to be fighting for? Baloney!
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Feb 19, 2016 1:20:12 GMT -5
Simpleton has a weird view of democracy.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 19, 2016 1:41:39 GMT -5
There is only one living God. The rest are figments of man's imagination. I've seen the Dalai Lama and he said he was a God. You have not seen your God and you tell me he is a God. Got me puzzled on the logic of that. curlywurlysammagee, do you mean you saw the Dalai Lama in person and he said he was a God? I'm not questioning you but I can't find any reference.
Can you show me where I can find that? BTW, I have a lot of books on Buddhism as well as other religious books including a couple of NEW unusual bibles (great for gifts) at my on-line book store.www.amagon.com/gp/shops/index.html?sellerID=AYGUIC3EFYOOV
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Feb 19, 2016 1:44:15 GMT -5
I have seen the Dalai Lama. On thinking about it he did not see he was a god but his followers say he is a a god. I presume that because of his involvement in his position that he also believes he is a god.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 19, 2016 2:16:40 GMT -5
I have seen the Dalai Lama. On thinking about it he did not see he was a god but his followers say he is a a god. I presume that because of his involvement in his position that he also believes he is a god. I wonder about that because I'm not sure that the Buddha, himself even felt that he was a 'god.'
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Feb 19, 2016 2:23:42 GMT -5
mmmmm k Dm will look into that a bit more. I have just read again Henrich Harrers book Seven years in Tibet. Have you read that?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 19, 2016 3:12:07 GMT -5
mmmmm k Dm will look into that a bit more. I have just read again Henrich Harrers book Seven years in Tibet. Have you read that? I think that I have read that, but I read so much that I forget what I read sometimes!
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Feb 19, 2016 3:18:22 GMT -5
Stick to the bible or its off to hell for you.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 19, 2016 4:14:54 GMT -5
Stick to the bible or its off to hell for you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2016 7:23:31 GMT -5
My post wasn't totally clear. I meant that I would like restrict voting to only those people who have registered in the Selective Service. So, if you are a person who never had to register because of X, Y, Z, then you are barred from voting. The idea is that you don't get political voice if you aren't willing to give your life to protect the state. It would seem that disenfranchisement for any reason is a dangerous precedent. Actually, you have it backwards. Extending the voting franchise without extremely good reason is a dangerous precedent. For much of US history we used to have a democratic republic comprised of a voting group who were stakeholders. Now we have a voting group comprised of entitlement recipients. It has turned out to be a disaster for public finances and taxation policies. Democracy is a very bad idea if it is not carefully managed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2016 7:45:11 GMT -5
There is only one living God. The rest are figments of man's imagination. I've seen the Dalai Lama and he said he was a God. You have not seen your God and you tell me he is a God. Got me puzzled on the logic of that. He who sees Jesus, sees the Father. Follow Jesus Christ in his truth and you will see God, not the Dalai Lama or any other God, but the only true God the Father who is the Living God. There's no puzzle, just honesty and sincerity. Anyone who sees Jesus, sees God the Father, for he is the express image of him.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 19, 2016 18:25:43 GMT -5
It would seem that disenfranchisement for any reason is a dangerous precedent. Actually, you have it backwards. Extending the voting franchise without extremely good reason is a dangerous precedent. For much of US history we used to have a democratic republic comprised of a voting group who were stakeholders. Now we have a voting group comprised of entitlement recipients. It has turned out to be a disaster for public finances and taxation policies.
Democracy is a very bad idea if it is not carefully managed. In other words, you see stakeholders as only someone who can bring into the system revenue (MONEY). Is that what you mean? And if they can't bring any revenue (MONEY) into the system of government, then they shouldn't be allowed too vote. Correct?
You believe that even though they are born, though no fault of their own BTW, and born in such a condition that that they will never be able to help fill the coffers of government due to their inability to work, therefore they are not ENTITLED to vote, is that correct?
Also even when they become older, and can no longer work, in spite of the fact that they had worked & paid into those government coffers when they did work, once that they no longer can do that, they should no longer be able to vote? Therefore all these people simple are not ENTITLED too vote & be able to have a voice in how our government is conducted.Is this what you mean?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2016 20:24:38 GMT -5
Actually, you have it backwards. Extending the voting franchise without extremely good reason is a dangerous precedent. For much of US history we used to have a democratic republic comprised of a voting group who were stakeholders. Now we have a voting group comprised of entitlement recipients. It has turned out to be a disaster for public finances and taxation policies.
Democracy is a very bad idea if it is not carefully managed. In other words, you see stakeholders as only someone who can bring into the system revenue (MONEY). Is that what you mean? And if they can't bring any revenue (MONEY) into the system of government, then they shouldn't be allowed too vote. Correct?
You believe that even though they are born, though no fault of their own BTW, and born in such a condition that that they will never be able to help fill the coffers of government due to their inability to work, therefore they are not ENTITLED to vote, is that correct?
Also even when they become older, and can no longer work, in spite of the fact that they had worked & paid into those government coffers when they did work, once that they no longer can do that, they should no longer be able to vote? Therefore all these people simple are not ENTITLED too vote & be able to have a voice in how our government is conducted.Is this what you mean? You can easily look up what the voting franchise was when the USA was initially established. I'd like something like that
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 19, 2016 20:46:18 GMT -5
In other words, you see stakeholders as only someone who can bring into the system revenue (MONEY). Is that what you mean? And if they can't bring any revenue (MONEY) into the system of government, then they shouldn't be allowed too vote. Correct?
You believe that even though they are born, though no fault of their own BTW, and born in such a condition that that they will never be able to help fill the coffers of government due to their inability to work, therefore they are not ENTITLED to vote, is that correct?
Also even when they become older, and can no longer work, in spite of the fact that they had worked & paid into those government coffers when they did work, once that they no longer can do that, they should no longer be able to vote? Therefore all these people simple are not ENTITLED too vote & be able to have a voice in how our government is conducted.Is this what you mean? You can easily look up what the voting franchise was when the USA was initially established. I'd like something like that I already know who could vote when the US was first established as a country.
The only people who could vote were White men WITH property! Not even ALL white men could vote.
Black men were actually allowed to vote before women could vote, -both white & black women.
At one time MEN could be subject to be drafted and sent into battle at an age when they were still too young to vote!
So don't tell me to go to any "voting franchise" site.
Just answer the questions that I asked.
|
|