Customer Discussions > Religion forum

Religion May Become Extinct in Nine Nations


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 676-700 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jun 3, 2012 11:29:49 AM PDT
Rational? Here?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 3, 2012 11:44:48 AM PDT
Faithradha says:
Eugine says:
Master: Mind is moving.

FR: Yup. And thanks for sharing that great 'teaching' story Eugene.

From the mind's perspective everything moves... but we are like the dreamer who dreams, via the mind that we are climbing a mountain, going fishing, meeting all these "other" people... and "DOing" all these different things... when in fact our lil head has never left its pillow.
"God" is like THAT.... the only thing that "moves" *here* is the mind... We are in fact "Perfect BE~ing" , Witness to the mind.. from a place of Absolute Stillness and ONEness.

It is the 'false' ego that takes credit for DOing all these things it never really did. We are ultimately speaking ..Human BE~ings.. as in the verb TO BE... not Human "Doers".

There is the temporary, experiential reality of the mind, and then there is the Constant and Transcendent Reality of THAT which is the Source of Mind... our Higher SELF.... Witness to ITs own Play of Consciousness.

~ Peace ~

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 3, 2012 11:47:22 AM PDT
Bubba says:
Unfortunately I have to agree with you.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 3, 2012 11:52:49 AM PDT
Jack Vix says:
jw: Most secularists I've met don't trust government anymore than they believe in a deity

JV: Because it's the same imaginary thing that dumb people give power.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 3, 2012 11:56:48 AM PDT
Faithradha says:
Mens Sana says: Christian political influence may well decrease over time, but die out? Nah ... or maybe about the same time people stop seeing figures in Rorschach texts.

FR: Only when that Karma... which creates the need for a "Suffering Saviour" is done for humanity... will that Belief System die out.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 3, 2012 12:03:26 PM PDT
TN says:
<<This is for those who, like me, distrust what Domenico writes.This is for those who, like me, distrust what Domenico writes..>>

In general distrust comes ignorance.

There are many things that I disagree with B. Josephson but it's his right to stay ignoramus.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 3, 2012 12:15:24 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 3, 2012 12:21:25 PM PDT
TN says:
<<So, a flawed Islamic version of human rights is still a step forwards. >>

Really??

The Cairo HR declaration basically says "human rights" are governed by sharia law. Well Sharia is anti-human right for non-Muslims, in other words, sharia treats non-Muslims differently from Muslims.

In plain language, HR per Sharia is similar to Henry Ford's "you can choose any color for your car as long as it's black", or even worse, "you have all the human rights, subject to sharia laws". So now you have to figure out what sharia laws are. There was a thread on sharia in the politics forums. Or use the internet, with due skepticism. Because taqqyyah is one of the things Muslims do. Read also the thread "Principles of Islam"

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 3, 2012 1:12:28 PM PDT
Jack Vix says:
*applause*

People like to blame the victim or people trying to help. This isn't survival of the fittest, it's extended family. We don't abondon our poor just because it cuts into our luxary. Overpopultaion is the main problem, not "lazy" people.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 3, 2012 2:22:12 PM PDT
J. Russell says:
StevePL says:
spl: You do not accept the autority of the Bible as God's word. It's that simple.

My Response:
How many religious canons are there? How many of them claim that they and they alone are some "gods true word"
Book (or holy canon) "x" says it is true, just because that book says it is true must it be considered true?
How come you are not a Scientology member, they say they have the real truth.
How come you are not a Mormon, they say in their holy canon that it is true.
How come you are not a Muslim, they say in their holy canon that it is true.
and so on, and so on.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 3, 2012 2:24:58 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 3, 2012 9:26:38 PM PDT
Robert A. Saunders said:

"Re seraphimblade, 6-1 8:28 AM: "I presume that you are then in favor of laws such as living wage?" I presume that you are. Suppose that the law requires me to pay employees at least $10 per hour. Someone comes to me looking for work, whose efforts can merit only $8 per hour. Should it be unlawful for me to hire him and pay him what he is worth? Or should I pay him MORE than he is worth, at the expense of other workers, stockholders, or myself?"

Sorry for the delay in responding to this, as I have meant to but haven't had the time to give it the treatment it deserves. It's a valid question, I think, but I don't think the answer is as presupposed as you think.

Allowing employers to pay "whatever they will" to employees doesn't lead to paying them what they are worth. Rather, it leads to a race to the bottom effect, where the most desperate take on jobs for peanuts, and the employers exploit them all they like. Setting a wage floor is absolutely critical and absolutely necessary to prevent this from occurring. That's a "what the market will bear" effect, but the "market" states that if someone will work for five cents an hour, and I can't survive on less than two dollars, you should fire me and hire them. That's just a race to the bottom, and is no way to a stable society. It also doesn't ultimately reflect what the employee's labor is worth, only how little the employer can get away with paying.

Sometimes, people act rationally. Henry Ford, not exactly known as a softie, recognized that if his own employees could not afford his cars, he was in serious trouble, and paid them accordingly well. But modern rent-seekers seem to lack that understanding, and suck up as much cash as they can as fast as they can, while giving back as little as they can in customer service, decent products, employee compensation, or contributions toward the infrastructure that keeps them thriving and solvent via taxation and/or voluntary contribution. Long-term stability never enters the calculation at all. Instead, they duck taxes, "outsource", lay off, continually worsen customer service and quality, break regulations if they think the fine is "worth it," and all the while justify it with "It's just business." The rest of us are tired of "It's just business" being used to "justify" increasingly unconscionable practices.

It's sad, but yes, they must be forced to act in society's best interests, including their own, in paying a decent, livable wage, not working employees half to death (or at least compensating them at an increased rate for hours over a certain number in a day or week to discourage the practice), and not ducking the taxes that pay for the foundations of the whole society. It's sad that they would fail to recognize on their own that such practices are ultimately corrosive and destructive, and lead at best to massive changes and at worst to the French or Russian Revolution, but that's the reality of the situation, and we must deal with it. Otherwise, we'll have guillotines (or their modern equivalents) on our hands again after one too many iterations of "Let them eat cake!" (today, the refrain everyone is getting thoroughly disgusted with is "It's just the way business works!" or "It's not my problem, my only duty is to the stockholders!", or "Business only exists to make a profit!"-take your pick of these and all such similar), and as little love as I have for the ultrarich, I don't want to see that type of scenario.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 3, 2012 7:39:25 PM PDT
Vicki says:
Dear Schoby,

You said :"A war is not just one nations army against another nations army, there are battles over who is more righteous then the other one, which belief is greater then the other belief, this very forum examples this battling, such conflicts of interest and intolerance can and have resulted in the innocent being harmed."

The "battling" on these forums usually have to do with people having different opinions. Sometimes people's feelings do get hurt or people get offended or are insulted. Are you proposing we stop discussing our different viewpoints, or are you suggesting that we can disagree in a more mannerly way?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 3, 2012 7:46:59 PM PDT
Vicki says:
Dear Faithradha,

You said :"I think it is important to note here that 'Religion' is by no means necessary for one to have a 'Moral Code'"

I agree. God created us to be moral agents. Even if we don't believe in God or practice a religion, we humans are prone to develop ethical codes.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 3, 2012 7:56:29 PM PDT
Jesus4us says:
Well, is any religious book "true"? Is any religious belief true?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 3, 2012 7:58:55 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 3, 2012 8:00:15 PM PDT
Jesus4us says:
Sometimes, people act rationally. Henry Ford, not exactly known as a softie, recognized that if his own employees could not afford his cars, he was in serious trouble, and paid them accordingly well. But modern rent-seekers seem to lack that understanding, and suck up as much cash as they can as fast as they can, while giving back as little as they can in customer service, decent products, employee compensation, or contributions toward the infrastructure that keeps them thriving and solvent via taxation and/or voluntary contribution. Long-term stability never enters the calculation at all. Instead, they duck taxes, "outsource", lay off, continually worsen customer service and quality, break regulations if they think the fine is "worth it," and all the while justify it with "It's just business." The rest of us are tired of "It's just business" being used to "justify" increasingly unconscionable practices.

spL: Hmmm, that makes a lot of sense. And being that it makes sense it will never fly!

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 3, 2012 8:00:28 PM PDT
Neither, at least not in entirety. It's a mixed bag. But traditionally, to call a body of statements true, all must be true. Scripture and belief do not comply, by a long shot.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 3, 2012 10:11:17 PM PDT
Jesus4us says:
Eugene R. Walker says:
Neither, at least not in entirety. It's a mixed bag. But traditionally, to call a body of statements true, all must be true. Scripture and belief do not comply, by a long shot.

spl: The way I see it, the Bible was written by men inspired by the Holy Spirit. In that respect God speaks in the Bible. That is why the Bible is said to contain The Truth, because it's God speaking to us telling us who He is, what He's about, and how to have a relationship with Him. That is the only Truth that I'm concerned with. Whether it was perfectly translated, or had other kinds of errors in it, is not really relevant. It's a perfect and supernatural book, one that if read with the Holy Spirit, God will speak to each person reading it giving that person the Truth of reality, and how to deal with that reality.

People always try to say that if there is one error in the Bible then it's not the Truth. But that is a stupid argument, for it's not the kind of Truth they're imagining.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 3, 2012 10:24:01 PM PDT
J. Russell says:
good question
what standard does one use to make that determination?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 3, 2012 10:34:42 PM PDT
Elizabeth says:
I totally agree, but I do not throw out the baby with the bath water and pre judgementally compartmentalize and act ill towards "all Christians" and listen to you all tolerate so nicely everything everywhere , but treat Christians in one fell swoop. that is what I am referring to when I speak of cognitive dissonance. it is a sad state of affairs. I do know some people that refer to the Christians as "them" , "the idiots" the "fools" and say it with vile hatred and really mostly misunderstanding and ignorance. This conversation though is moot , though . Maybe very soon "they will all disappear" and you will all be so very loving and happy, I am sure. now THAT my friends does take some faith .

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 3, 2012 10:48:11 PM PDT
Faithradha says:
Seraphim says: ... It's sad, but yes, they must be forced to act in society's best interests, including their own, in paying a decent, livable wage, not working employees half to death.

FR: There is actually a word in Chinese which means "Worked to Death". There was an articles a number of years back... where a young Chinese woman working in in a Beanie Baby factory that siimply dropped dead... the reason given? She was literally worked to death.
If that doesn't want to make one throw up then one has lost their humanity.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 3, 2012 10:50:05 PM PDT
Jesus4us says:
J. Russell says:
good question
what standard does one use to make that determination?

spl: In the Bible's case I'd say it was subjective. Does it seem true to the person reading it. It seems true to me, for some of the most incredible claims it makes has come true in my life.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 3, 2012 10:50:41 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 3, 2012 10:57:42 PM PDT
Faithradha says:
spl: The way I see it, the Bible was written by men inspired by the Holy Spirit.

FR: Then why did those who assembled the Bible leave out some who were indeed inspired by the Holy Spirit... such as Thomas and Mary Magdeline? Their ommission tells me that those responsible for choosing could not discriminate between what was and what was not Jesus' most sublime teachings... instead they rejected such writings as heretic, so it becomes clear that their understanding of Jesus' perspective was LIMITED to say the least.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 3, 2012 10:55:59 PM PDT
Jesus4us says:
Yes, capitalism can be heartless. Capitalism works for a while, and in certain situations, but often becomes cruel and heartless, and that is when socialism gains power. Like Europe, I see the US going a modified socialism route, with some capitalism still existing. But given full reign capitalsim can turn into a nightmare.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 3, 2012 10:57:17 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 3, 2012 11:29:30 PM PDT
Jesus4us says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Jun 3, 2012 11:02:37 PM PDT
Faithradha says:
spl: Because men inspired by the Holy Spirit had to weed out those that were not inspired by God.


FR: But that was my point... they in fact did reject at least some who WERE inspired by "God". Those who chose SAID they knew Jesus, but they did not KNOW Jesus... not from Jesus' highest Non-dual State. Their understanding of Jesus was in fact LIMITED to ONLY the dualistic state. They missed a whole part of Jesus... in fact.. the MOST important aspect of Jesus.

Posted on Jun 3, 2012 11:09:57 PM PDT
Faithradha says:
On reading Scripture... There are two ways to understand True Scripture.. one is via the subjective mind, which is limited, and the other is via Transcendent Knowledge, where one circumvents the subjective mind and taps directly into The Divine Infinite Mind of "God" and becomes ONE WITH That which is Known.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Religion forum
Participants:  83
Total posts:  2002
Initial post:  May 23, 2012
Latest post:  Jul 24, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 10 customers

Search Customer Discussions