|
Post by dianaholberg on Aug 20, 2005 9:33:23 GMT -5
What I was actually refering to was not your thoughts on evil but on dealing with evils not specified in the Bible. Meaning things like abortion? I'm sorry, I'm weary of your guessing game. Please be clear in your questions. That's because I disagree that this is a flaw. In fact, it's my entire point. Why? Because you say so? I believe the worst evil is that which masquerades as good, but is in reality a counterfeit. Again, Satan is an angel of Light. With this I agree. And sin -- not evil -- is the opposite of holiness.
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Aug 20, 2005 9:45:49 GMT -5
That would certainly be true for someone who believes that God is [extremely] meticulous, I think. Okay, if you want to be meticulous... we would all be in perfect harmony... Agreed. Which is why dialogue is necessary for communication. Seems so. I say they are terms we use for the best of the best... something worth striving for. I can't speak for freebird. I don't ask anyone to "live up to" anything. A goal is worth striving for. Holiness is in the dictionary. That is why we have dictionaries. PolyTheist also asked me for "my" definition, but the rest of his post made it clear that he already grasped my meaning. [/font][/quote] Hence dialogue. Why is it a problem for you that we discuss these things to gain understanding? I don't expect anything. Why do you assume that I do?
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Aug 20, 2005 10:58:33 GMT -5
What I was actually refering to was not your thoughts on evil but on dealing with evils not specified in the Bible. Meaning things like abortion? I do not bleive abortion to be evil. I cannot understand how anyone else can, Especially in light of all the direct orders from God to kill in the Bible. I'm sorry, I'm weary of your guessing game. Please be clear in your questions. What guessing game. I have not any hidden meaning in what I post. That's because I disagree that this is a flaw. In fact, it's my entire point. I believe the worst evil is that which masquerades as good, but is in reality a counterfeit. I understand now, the reason behind the presentation. I still disagree with it, but at least I now understand. Again, Satan is an angel of Light. Is or was? With this I agree. And sin -- not evil -- is the opposite of holiness. I already know that we have different meanings for the word sin and holiness. So though I disagree with that statement it is simply because of the differences in meanings of the words used.
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Aug 20, 2005 11:13:35 GMT -5
Satan is an angel... angels are spiritual beings and therefore immortal. So IS... not was. He is fallen, but that doesn't change the purpose for which he was created. He is still a beautiful angel -- but he uses that beauty to entice rather than glorify God.
(It might be worthwhile to meditate on the implications of this for fallen man.)
I have asked you your definitions of words before and you evaded.
If you don't like the words "sin" and "holiness", then let's use words for which you have no emotional reaction. Instead of holiness, we can say "white". Instead of evil, we can say "not-white". Instead of "sin", we can say "black".
It matters not to me which words are used so long as meaning is understood. What matters is communication.
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Aug 20, 2005 11:27:38 GMT -5
Satan is an angel... angels are spiritual beings and therefore immortal. So IS... not was. He is fallen, but that doesn't change the purpose for which he was created. He is still a beautiful angel -- but he uses that beauty to entice rather than glorify God. (It might be worthwhile to meditate on the implications of this for fallen man.) I have asked you your definitions of words before and you evaded. If you don't like the words "sin" and "holiness", then let's use words for which you have no emotional reaction. Instead of holiness, we can say "white". Instead of evil, we can say "not-white". Instead of "sin", we can say "black". It matters not to me which words are used so long as meaning is understood. What matters is communication. I define sin as going against the known desires/will of ones deity. Holiness is sacredness according to one deity. As for the "emotional attraction" I have no idea what you are talking about. Your definitions of the words sin and holiness differ from mine. that is why I disagreed with the statement. Why the ad hominem?
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Aug 20, 2005 13:34:05 GMT -5
Emotional reaction. Please read carefully.
I am not engaging in ad hominem. I am telling you that I have no interest in playing games with words.
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Aug 20, 2005 14:55:15 GMT -5
You said you want to use words that I have not any emotional reaction. It is not emotional reaction, or even lack of, that is the problem. The problem is that we have differing definitions for the words being used.
Nor am I playing games with words. I merely stated the fact that the reason I disagreed with your statement is because I do not use the same definitions of those words that you use.
|
|
|
Post by freebird on Aug 21, 2005 1:11:11 GMT -5
God Without Religion:
Wow, what a concept.I believe that would make it truly a personal relationship with the spirit of the universe because their would be no interference from the religios folks who think they have the truth for everyone. Most of us here on this discussion board have a belief in a higher power or God or whatever you want to put there. So with that said how can you put your truth above everyone elses. I guess you may believe you can but then again maybe you are a legend in your own mind. How about respect all paths and take a little from each and put it all together and i bet you got one heck of a spiritual path to lead you down the road. Not a better way just a different way.
Freebird
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Aug 21, 2005 9:37:47 GMT -5
Freebird, was this post directed at me or at PolyTheist?
If it was directed at me, I can assure you that I don't believe I have anything to offer anyone except my example and testimony.
God bless, Diana
|
|
|
Post by freebird on Aug 21, 2005 15:01:41 GMT -5
Diana:
Those were just my thoughts. Not directed at anyone. You are right. All we have is our experience because that is really all we know.
Freebird
|
|
|
Post by Tara on Aug 21, 2005 19:09:29 GMT -5
Gow Without Religion. It is quite a concept. Just think about it, what would God be without religion? Anyone want to take a stab? Edit to add: And I don't mean at God, just the concept. (before anyone gets offended or misreads anything. lol )
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Aug 21, 2005 19:24:46 GMT -5
lol...
I'm assuming you mean without worship?
I don't suppose a god is a god at all if there is no one worshiping.
God without worship would be... well... killed.
|
|
|
Post by freebird on Aug 21, 2005 23:29:33 GMT -5
Diana:
When I celebrate my oneness with God I do not need a religion to tell me how to do that. The building is totally unnecessary. This is an inside personal relationship that doesnt need the ok of anyone to be forgiven or one with Spirit. We are all the Holy Fathers and Mothers.
Freebird
|
|
|
Post by Tara on Aug 22, 2005 6:21:37 GMT -5
lol... I'm assuming you mean without worship? Hmm... is worship and religion synonymous?
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Aug 22, 2005 7:37:32 GMT -5
It's the primary definition. Main Entry: re·li·gionPronunciation: ri-'li-j&n Function: noun[i/] Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY 1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance 2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices 3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS 4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith - re·li·gion·less adjective
|
|