If you didn't believe in the after life would you be different?

[General of Darkness]

I was just thinking about this on the way home. If a person didn't believe that their actions on Earth either sent them to Heaven or Hell, they probably would be selfish evil fuckers.

I'd like to think I would still be a dick stabbing SOB, with a kind heart that knows the difference between right and wrong, but then again I'm not sure.

What do you guys and gals say?

[Cobalt]

It would all depend if my parents, grandparents did their life differently because the rules and responsibilities I now follow were handed down from them, and they taught me right from wrong based upon how they were brought up.

[Book]

If a person didn't believe that their actions on Earth either sent them to Heaven or Hell, they probably would be selfish evil fuckers.



They would be following their Talmud (http://www.come-and-hear.com/navigate.html).

[Antonio]

I`d sure kill a few motherfuckers.
We all have a list,don`t we?

[nunaem]

"Virtue is rewarded in this world, remember."

[Ponce]

Being there three times......I went to sleep, woke up .............. and that was it.........no tunnel, no light, no face of God............nada.

[zap]

I don't believe in hell.

[LuckyStrike]

I don't really understand the question. My actions, at least consciously, don't have much to do with the afterlife. It's not as though I try to do good because I want a big reward in heaven, or I don't do bad because I don't want to go to hell. That in my opinion is a selfish way to be.

I try to do the will of my Creator. I try to live the way he commanded.

So I reject the premise of this question and pose one that I believe would be more accurate.



Would you live differently if you didn't think your actions would ultimately be judged by your Creator?

[zap]

No

[Ponce]

I don't believe in hell.


Heaven and Hell is what you make out of your life here on Earth........me? for now I am in heaven.

[ShortJohnSilver]

Oh absolutely I would give in to my baser desires... I would have 11 different kids from 8 different women, probably have killed at least one person, etc.

[Gaillo]

I don't believe in heaven or hell (or God, for that matter)... and I haven't for a good part of my life. I'm not an "evil bastard" and don't "give in to my animal nature" - and I don't feel the "urge" to go on killing sprees of my enemies, take whatever I want by force or fraud, etc.

Lack of religion does NOT imply lack of morality... in fact I would make the astonishing claim that I'm probably MORE moral than many religious people. I don't act out of superstitious fear, I don't condemn others for their lack of belief, I don't justify murder, theft, or bigotry in the name of "God", and I don't lord it over my fellow man because I "have the right faith" and they don't. The rational man recognizes that "do unto others" is the CORRECT way to live, due to it's DIRECT consequences and rewards HERE AND NOW on THIS planet, not because the "sky bully" will beat you up some day or deny your entrance to paradise.

I look at it this way: Christians do not believe in the THOUSANDS of "Gods" that have been invented by men from the dawn of civilization. Atheists just take that non-belief one "God" further. I don't really care WHAT a person "believes" in, but if you need the threats of an invisible almighty being to dictate to you what is right and wrong, then perhaps you need to re-examine who you are and if you REALLY have a conscience or not... and whether you are being guided by FEAR instead of morality.

[Serpo]

Believe in nothing and you experience god

Believe in something, anything and poof hes gone

Experiencing and thinking/believing is not the same

All that is is conscience ,your conscience

Give up thinking about any after life ,its called programming ie reward/punishment

Always live according to your conscience

Everyone is basically good

And no Id never kill someone for some selfish motive of my own

Empty your mind of thought but to do that you must get beyond fear ie fear of hell....this is why the church plays the hell card ..so we fear.... so we are then trapped in our own minds......

[Neuro]

Heaven and Hell is on earth in this life, and our actions and thinking determines where we are, most of us somewhere in between most of the time. Living an immoral life will land you in your own hell...

[undgrd]

Gaillo and Cobalt hit the mark IMO.

I am the way I am because I was taught to act the way I act. I like the person I am and ninety nine times out of one hundred, I feel like I did the right thing. So no, I wouldn't change the way I am.

PS: Sky Bully...Priceless! :lol

[StackerKen]

no one earns their way into heaven. but i answered yes i woud be different

[EE_]

I think many want to believe in an after-life with a heaven and hell, a place that is just and fair where you will be judged for your real value and goodness.

It appears there is a heaven and hell on earth and is not hard to see what looks like many are living.
The heaven and hell we see in front of us is only an illusion, where so many good God fearing people are living in hell, and so many of the truly evil get to live in heaven.

Their heaven comes with a price, they have so much and live like kings, but when they look in the mirror they only see a soulless evil being that obtained all their bounty by theft and the misery of others. Is this really heaven we see?

I want to believe something comes after this life and I believe we were originally created by a higher power...because why are we here?

If there is an after-life heaven and hell, hell is going to be a very crowded place!

I believe there are many soulless beings walking the planet that were put here to do evil, one's that have no chance of an after-life.

All that said, I've seen the devil and I have been touched by an angel.
Is it my imagination?

[gunDriller]

if i kill a troll, can i still go to Heaven ?

do they have Great Value Carrots in Heaven ?

do they have Boogie Boarding in Heaven ?

OK, i can answer that - i'm pretty sure we need to do all our boogie-boarding during this life-time.

[RJB]

I think it's sad when I see atheists write that heaven and hell was invented by religions to control the masses. Sad because as a former atheist, I know where they are coming, but mostly, because they are missing the point.

There are two parts to this statement: morality and relationship with God.

For morality, I was pretty moral as an atheist. It was my upbringing as a Christian, I believe, but even with a disbelief in God, I knew my behavior affected others. When I would slip up, it was when I would try to justify my actions (I could find numerous loopholes). As a former military man, I wanted to follow a code of honor that I would hold myself to and I could see no better one than to love my neighbor as myself. This didn't make me a Christian-- I was still an atheist, but I developed a respect for Christianity.

The point that atheists miss about religion is that the importance is in the relationship with God-- not fear. Every Christian has spent time asking Jesus into their life and all who have asked with a sincere heart has felt the presence, a calling, something almost tangible that can't be explained away when compared to other life experiences. For me death is pretty abstract and for me personally, heaven and hell don't affect me on a daily basis. Usually, it's more of when I'm not following the Christian principles, I find I feel a more distant relation with God. If you really are seeking the truth, try (with a sincere heart) asking Jesus into your life, to guide you and see what happens.

[keehah]

I sure none of you would be psychopathic murderers if you were not mind controlled.
Perhaps I'm just in denial though. ;D

[Horn]

Would you live differently if you didn't think your actions would ultimately be judged by your Creator?

That's a better question, my answer would still be, No.

Neither of us would be happy with that.

[bellevuebully]

How about ......'would you be the same if you knew Christ died for you that you may have eternal life?'

No.

[Ash_Williams]

I'd be about the same.

Right now I don't know if there is an afterlife, one way or another.
I don't see myself being any different if I 100% believed there was not an afterlife.

I don't need the threat of hell to avoid killing people. Actually I'd think God would be ok with me killing the type of people I'd like to kill.

I wouldn't be more or less selfish. I believe there is only a balance when everyone is necessarily selfish, otherwise we end up like today with a few having massive amounts of wealth and power and the rest hating them for it while still enabling the system. People too easily toss out their self-interest, after being convinced that having such is immoral.

[G2Rad]

I was just thinking about this on the way home. If a person didn't believe that their actions on Earth either sent them to Heaven or Hell, they probably would be selfish evil fuckers.

I'd like to think I would still be a dick stabbing SOB, with a kind heart that knows the difference between right and wrong, but then again I'm not sure.

What do you guys and gals say?


God, afterlife and the judgment are reality.

Otherwise you would not have had conscience & sense of guilt built in into you by the Designer.

People invent religions in an attempt to get rid of buzzing conscience and convicting guilt.

[Awoke]

I am concerned for you non-believers and athiests here. However I do not preach or get dogmatic about this type of thing. I'll pray that God reveals himself to you in accordance with His will for your path.

I would bring a point to your attention though:
The Global Elite know that Christ/God is real, and choose to serve lucifer.


Would they "waste their time" worshipping a "god" of deceit if none of it was real?
Would they "waste their time" incessantly attacking the Church if none of it was real?
What do they know that you don't?

[sirgonzo420]

I am concerned for you non-believers and athiests here. However I do not preach or get dogmatic about this type of thing. I'll pray that God reveals himself to you in accordance with His will for your path.

I would bring a point to your attention though:
The Global Elite know that Christ/God is real, and choose to serve lucifer.


Would they "waste their time" worshipping a "god" of deceit if none of it was real?
Would they "waste their time" incessantly attacking the Church if none of it was real?
What do they know that you don't?




To paraphrase an old friend/nemesis:


"we have our gods mixed up".

[sirgonzo420]

from: http://www.rense.com/general75/godthat.htm


Last week, I noted that the Soviets razed thousands of churches but spared synagogues.

If Communists considered religion "the opium of the masses," why didn't they include Judaism? I asked. Do Christians and Jews worship the same God? Is there an affinity between Communism and Judaism? (http://www.savethemales.ca/001913.html)

Perhaps the Jewish elite has a different God. A reader, "George," knew the heiress of a rich Jewish banking family "not the Rothschilds, although her family dwelt in a palace neighbouring the Rothschilds."

"Leah was one of my classmates in the Geneva University (Switzerland) where I was studying psychology ...She was an attractive blue-eyed blond lady. ...As she was wearing a Star of David, I asked if she was a believer. She answered "yes and no" and added that she believed in a god of the Jews who was serving the Jews rather than served by them. I immediately asked whether she was speaking of an egregore ...Her only response was "yes" and she broke that conversation. Never again did we mention the subject."

According to Wikipedia, "egregore" is an occult concept representing a "thought form" or "collective group mind", an autonomous psychic entity made up of, and influencing, the thoughts of a group of people. The symbiotic relationship between an egregore and its group has been compared to the more recent, non-occult concepts of the corporation (as a legal entity) and the meme.

George speculates that elite Jews created the Jewish God as their "egregore," i.e. an instrument of their collective will, i.e. their desire to vanquish the heathens and rule supreme.

...

[Horn]

Make belief before taking the trip, wouldn't want to get left out in the cold with all the other suckers.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_UCgGt1ghmjU/TPaC1-5PGrI/AAAAAAAAADc/ABRbKMYKf-s/s1600/ll_purgatory.jpg

What kind of value can you assign to something so easily created as make belief?

[Awoke]

Communism and judaism are synonymous.

[StackerKen]

some good posts here... :)

I wanted to clarifily my short post (I made it with my phone on the way to work(van pool) ;D


I am different because I am grateful for Gods Mercy and His Grace that has been shown to me.

I have heard it put this way...

Mercy is NOT getting what you deserve. Grace is getting what you DON'T deserve.

And because I am So thankful for His Grace and Mercy, I think the Very least I can do is try to mercifully and graceful to others.

So yeah...I think Believing makes me different :)

[Serpo]

[/quote]


How do you know you wouldn't be different if you don't know if there's an afterlife ?
You don't know that you don't know.


[/quote]

I know...

[sirgonzo420]

How do you know you wouldn't be different if you don't know if there's an afterlife ?
You don't know that you don't know.


[/quote]

I know...
[/quote]

no you don't :P

[LuckyStrike]

Communism and judaism are synonymous.


Very true.

For those that doubt that

http://www.truthinourtime.com/2009/10/jews-and-communism.html

Some excerpts from that post

"The governments of the peoples included in this world republic, with the aid of the victorious proletariat, all will fall without difficulty into Jewish hands. Private property will then be strangled by the Jewish directors, who will administer the state patrimony everywhere. Thus the promise of the Talmud will be fulfilled, that is, the promise that the Jews, at the arrival of the Messiah, will possess the key to the wealth of all the peoples of the earth."
- Baruch Levy, in a letter to Karl Marx, published in the Rothschild controlled La Revue de Paris, June 1, 1928.


"Marx is a Jew and is surrounded by a crowd of little, more or less intelligent, scheming, agile, speculating Jews, just as Jews are everywhere, commercial and banking agents, writers, politicians, correspondents for newspapers of all shades; in short, literary brokers, just as they are financial brokers, with one foot in the bank and the other in the socialist movement, and their arses sitting upon the German press. They have grabbed hold of all newspapers, and you can imagine what a nauseating literature is the outcome of it. Now this entire Jewish world, which constitutes an exploiting sect, a people of leeches, a voracious parasite, Marx feels an instinctive inclination and a great respect for the Rothschilds. This may seem strange. What could there be in common between communism and high finance? Ho ho! The communism of Marx seeks a strong state centralization, and where this exists there must inevitably exist a state central bank, and where this exists, there the parasitic Jewish nation, which speculates upon the labor of the people, will always find the means for its existence... In reality, this would be for the proletariat a barrack regime, under which the workingmen and the working closely and intimately connected with one another, regardless not only of frontiers but of political differences as well - this Jewish world is today largely at the disposal of Marx or Rothschild. I am sure that, on the one hand, the Rothschilds appreciate the merits of Marx, and that on the other hand, women, converted into a uniform mass, would rise, fall asleep, work and live at the beat of the drum; the privilege of ruling would be in the hands of the skilled and the learned, with a wide scope left for profitable crooked deals carried on by the Jews, who would be attracted by the enormous extension of the international speculations of the national banks...
(Polémique contres les Juifs) Bakunyin, Mikhyl: 19th century Russian revolutionary



Researcher Wayne McGuire of Harvard University writes:
"Lenin was a Jew by the standards of Israel's Law of Return: he possessed a Jewish grandparent. It would seem that not only was Lenin a Jew, but that he was a Jewish racist and chauvinist, although he kept his ideas on this volatile subject far in the background, probably because they were in radical conflict with the supposed universalism of Marxism... Lenin was a Jewish racist who deliberately gave Jews especially, the most 'intellectually demanding tasks.' He admitted that 50% of the communist terrorist vanguard in the south and west of Russia was comprised of Jews."

[ximmy]

How do you know you wouldn't be different if you don't know if there's an afterlife ?
You don't know that you don't know.




I know...
[/quote]

no you don't :P
[/quote]

He has faith in his knowledge... :P

[sirgonzo420]

How do you know you wouldn't be different if you don't know if there's an afterlife ?
You don't know that you don't know.




I know...


no you don't :P
[/quote]

He has faith in his knowledge... :P
[/quote]

I don't believe it. :D

[Awoke]

You guys need to learn how to patch these quotes together.

;D

[vacuum]

Another interesting question - would you commit suicide if you didn't believe in the afterlife?

[Buddha]

No, because I'm not sure if I do or not. But fears of having to spend an eternity in fire, or expectations of spending it in paradise is foolish when used as a way to treat others. Are we dogs to be punished when doing something wrong or rewarded when doing something right?
If some kind of reward or punishment after death is why one does not do bad things, then that makes them dogs.

I need no belief of punishment or reward to do unto others as I would have them do unto me.


Another interesting question - would you commit suicide if you didn't believe in the afterlife?

Yep, I would if I did too. Some omnipotent father figure is not going to tell me that I do not have the right to my own life. An eternity in hell for offing yourself makes no sense to me, and seems like something used in feudal times to keep the serfs alive and working.

[mrnhtbr2232]

No, I would not be different. If the premise is religion gives you strength instead of fear, there are other ways to accomplish that without surrendering to institutionalized hierarchies of power. I remain in awe at the miracle of creation and take no quarter there are more powerful forces in the universe than me. But that does not mean accepting the lifestyle, behavior, and belief systems of religion X,Y, or Z is necessary or influential in my life. I can choose independently to be charitable, kind, and honest without guidance or fellowship clouding my judgment. If the hereafter is real, I'll hand over my 'E' ticket when it's showtime, but that has little bearing on my mortal life and how I live it.

[Serpo]

How do you know you wouldn't be different if you don't know if there's an afterlife ?
You don't know that you don't know.




I know...


no you don't :P
[/quote]

He has faith in his knowledge... :P
[/quote]


My what lovely eyes you have today Ximmy

ps I know I dont know but I knew....

[Agrippa]

I don't believe, and I am different.

The most moral people I know are non-believers.

The person who behaves themselves only because they think they are being watched isn't really a moral actor. If they lose faith in the existence of the watcher, or come to think that the watcher isn't looking, or cease to care about the judgment of the watcher (e.g. they become convinced that they are going to hell anyway), or if they become convinced that the watcher approves of some misbehavior: they will misbehave.

The person who behaves themselves because that is the way they were raised may act like a moral person, but it is just an act they were trained to perform. If circumstances arise that weren't anticipated in their training they may well misbehave. They may also rebel against their training, and, having no ability to judge moral behavior for themselves, they might do anything.

It is the person who rationally understands the reasons for moral codes, and who sits in judgment upon themselves that can be relied upon to act morally.

[Book]

The person who behaves themselves because that is the way they were raised may act like a moral person, but it is just an act they were trained to perform. If circumstances arise that weren't anticipated in their training they may well misbehave. They may also rebel against their training, and, having no ability to judge moral behavior for themselves, they might do anything.

It is the person who rationally understands the reasons for moral codes, and who sits in judgment upon themselves that can be relied upon to act morally.



A good parent explains the reasons for their moral code. Many subconsciously carry around internalized parents who guide them.

"What Would Dad Do?"

[k-os]

This is a good thread, I don't know how I missed it until today.

I behave the way I do, because behaving badly (cheating, stealing) makes me dislike myself. Generally, I like myself, but if I have hurt someone - I feel it, and I know it. That doesn't go away.

Disclaimer: There are some really fantastic religious people that I have met in my lifetime. I respect people who have true faith, and I admire their faith, as I have said before.

However, some of the most rotten people I have met have hid behind a veil of religiosity and religiousness, all the while being absolutely rotten. Rude, insulting, angry, mean, cheating, stealing, selfish, spiteful . . . just rotten.

Maybe they knew they were rotten, and they were constantly asking for God's help. That's the best case scenario. But the conclusion that I finally came to was that they were acting, which to me, is even more rotten. (I think this is the true definition of using the lord's name in vein, by the way.)

Religious people ruined religion for me, but I don't behave like a barbarian because I don't have a group relationship with God.

On the flip side, some people (claim to) have a group relationship with God, yet consistently behave in a way that contradicts the claim.

[MAGNES]

The question implies that fear is the driving force which is wrong.

Socrates would say no, or refuse to answer your question, he would ask the questions.

I removed the rest of my long post on this.

I could use events on this forum as well as a microcosm of society to demonstrate some points.

One word, JUSTICE ! Everything revolves around it. These ideas are even on our metals.

"All men's souls are immortal, but the souls of the righteous are immortal and divine."
"Be as you wish to seem."
“It is not living that matters, but living rightly.”
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil."
“Let him that would move the world first move himself.”
“The greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend to be.”
“Regard your good name as the richest jewel you can possibly be possessed of.”
“…all human virtues increase and strengthen themselves by the practice of them.”



http://i53.tinypic.com/106hqid.jpg

[MAGNES]

To paraphrase an old friend/nemesis:

"we have our gods mixed up".


Spoken by a learned Rabbi, " " expert on Classics " " ancient knowledge " , Mr. Mason, skyvikes partner.

The Occult exists to batter The West and Christians, everything that is good and beautiful.

Even pro Jewish and politically correct professor admits this, they are against God,
the world, creation and all that is beautiful. The basis of the Occult is the earliest gnostics,
as counters to Jesus and Christianity, they really do hate the world.
A History of Western Philosophy - Bertrand Russell

The OT is not Christianity, NT and Jesus Christ is.

Who do Jews and the Occult target ? NT, Jesus, real knowledge, real leaders.

[MAGNES]

I don't see the question implying fear as the driving force, but I could see how it could be taken that way.


It does especially considering some " christian " belief and medieval creations like Dante's Inferno
that fed on this, contrast that with ancient beliefs, and the related quotes I gave above, that is
Socrates talking, nobody commenting, lol, he and Plato are the authority on this and also highly
influencing Christian thought throughout and Philosophy, every other philosopher is just a footnote
to them say scholars, lol, in ancient times no hell, hades is not hell, it is very different, even those
that did nothing with their lives suffer a bit, so do something, do not be idle.

[bellevuebully]

To paraphrase an old friend/nemesis:

"we have our gods mixed up".


Spoken by a learned Rabbi, " " expert on Classics " " ancient knowledge " , Mr. Mason, skyvikes partner.

The Occult exists to batter The West and Christians, everything that is good and beautiful.

Even pro Jewish and politically correct professor admits this, they are against God,
the world, creation and all that is beautiful. The basis of the Occult is the earliest gnostics,
as counters to Jesus and Christianity, they really do hate the world.
A History of Western Philosophy - Bertrand Russell

The OT is not Christianity, NT and Jesus Christ is.

Who do Jews and the Occult target ? NT, Jesus, real knowledge, real leaders.




Even pro Jewish and politically correct professor admits this, they are against God,
the world, creation and all that is beautiful. The basis of the Occult is the earliest gnostics,
as counters to Jesus and Christianity, they really do hate the world.
A History of Western Philosophy - Bertrand Russell

The OT is not Christianity, NT and Jesus Christ is.

Who do Jews and the Occult target ? NT, Jesus, real knowledge, real leaders.


While I don't fully subscribe to your point that the earliest gnostics were the basis of the occult, your basic premise is correct, imo. It (the occult, in it's countless forms) exists primarily to counter the claims of Christ. As for the jews, they are like any other......spiritually disconnected from the truth of Christ, no different than an athiest, a buddhist, muslim, hindu, new-age spiritualist, whatever.

In light of this, it is interesting to note that pretty much every spritual belief other than Christianity exists autonomously, individually and exclusively while Christianity itself is fractured into a myriad of doctrinal abberations. The attack against the core of it's doctrines speaks volumes about it's power and validity when one cares to take note. In other words, the acceptance of an outright falsity well takes care of the problem, as does acceptance of something close to the truth but not quite genuine. Essentially, the attack focus' on the soft under-belly of our inmost desires...self-sufficiency, pride, selfishness.

As to your point that the OT is not Christianity, I would fully agree. However, it is fully about Jesus Christ.

[Jazkal]

"If you didn't believe in the after life would you be different?"

Well this question assumes that we have only our faith to base our belief on.
What most people don't know, is that there is actually good evidence for life after death.

After looking at the evidence (and first hand experience), here is what a few atheists had to say.



"John Beloff, writing in 'The Humanist', argued that the evidence for an afterlife was so strong that humanists should just admit it and attempt to interpret it in naturalistic terms." ('Hereafter: What Happens After Death?', p.33-34)




The well known atheist philosopher A.J. Ayer experienced an NDE that he could not explain in natural terms: "On the face of it, these experiences, on the assumption that the last one was vertical, are rather strong evidence that death does not put an end to consciousness" ... "My recent experiences have slightly weakened my conviction that my genuine death, which is due fairly soon, will be the end of me, though I continue to hope that it will be." ('What I Saw When I Was Dead: Intimations of Immortality', National Review, Oct 14, 1988)




'atheist philosopher Andrew Flew attests that NDE's "certainly constitute impressive evidence of the possibility of the occurrence of human consciousness independent of any occurrences in the human brain" ' ('The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus', p. 147)

[MAGNES]

While I don't fully subscribe to your point that the earliest gnostics were the basis of the occult, your basic premise is correct, imo. It (the occult, in it's countless forms) exists primarily to counter the claims of Christ. As for the jews, they are like any other......spiritually disconnected from the truth of Christ, no different than an athiest, a buddhist, muslim, hindu, new-age spiritualist, whatever.

In light of this, it is interesting to note that pretty much every spritual belief other than Christianity exists autonomously, individually and exclusively while Christianity itself is fractured into a myriad of doctrinal abberations. The attack against the core of it's doctrines speaks volumes about it's power and validity when one cares to take note. In other words, the acceptance of an outright falsity well takes care of the problem, as does acceptance of something close to the truth but not quite genuine. Essentially, the attack focus' on the soft under-belly of our inmost desires...self-sufficiency, pride, selfishness.

As to your point that the OT is not Christianity, I would fully agree. However, it is fully about Jesus Christ.


Thanks for your post, I am usually in the middle here, the Occult existed to batter the
Romans/Greeks who were the power, they were already organized to batter the Christians,
these are my opinions from reading history, Jews Vs Greeks, Jews Vs The West , Vs Rome,
Vs Christianity, the point you mentioned about the gnostics is not my opinion , I gave you a
pro Jewish reference. I will see about finding the right pages, problem is I was listening to
podcast of book, but book exists. I was also reading Revilo recently, more evidence of Jewish
treachery in Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece, he lists sources and has quotes, very revealing.
He talks about the OT, their history in Egypt that they themselves write, then he compares
it to Roman sources, Claudius and what they did in Alexandria. The target is not just
Christianity, it is whatever society they enter, they operate through corruption, they corrupt
beliefs of the builders and take over from there, there is a purpose to their madness.

On gim I was attacked by "christians", I ain't a Christian, etc, which is fine, Waog even openly
stated about stoning some Christians, which was acceptable to skyvike and gim, that was the
level of discourse on gim, the religion section was not educational, but mostly occult babble
from the leader goldissima who I destroyed on here, she openly admitted what she is on here.

Even attacking the OT on here some people on here may not appreciate that.
Even making obvious comments on here about OT and NT and Christianity offends
some. Even friends, you just joined me in that, lol, but they know me I am not a fan
of OT, that is not Christianity, a Greek Orthodox Priest explained that to me long ago,
as a kid, some here want to stone us. ROFL ! Some of the morons accept the occult
instead of leaders.

If people read some of the works and beliefs of the Jews you can easily see
where the Occult , deceit and corruption comes from, the mind it takes.

" I shall set brother against brother " so you can rape everyone.

[MAGNES]

spiritually disconnected from the truth of Christ


Bellevuebully, I see you as a good guy, and the rest of the more open Christians on here.

I want to ask you something, do you really believe they want the truth ?

I quoted Socrates above without credit, nobody took the bait, lol, that is truth,
Jesus Christ himself could of made those statements and maybe did. lol

Only in a society where the majority believe in those statements and live by them
most of the time, can you build a society, which is why the planet is the way it is. Beliefs.

Why would any group change their ways of piracy and plunder as they are getting fatter ?
That is basically what they are doing, their history shows this.

By accepting Christ and his teachings they would have to throw away their disgusting voodoo books.
They would have no justification for plundering the unsuspecting at that point, as a cohesive group
as well led by Rabbi's. Same parallel ideas/history around Maccabees and that history, that was pre Christian, it is not just about Christianity, Antiochus Epiphanes , mentioned Anty Ep on here a few
times tonight, key history.

[Awoke]

I would assert that evil occultism far pre-dates the earliest accounts of Gnostism.

Where ba'al and moloch worship likely predate babylon, gnositism does not.

From the Plot against the Church




JEWRY, THE FATHER OF THE GNOSTICS

The first false teaching to bring the life of the nascent Church into danger was that of the Gnostics. The latter was formed not by one but by various secret societies, which began to carry out a really destructive work within Christianity. Many Gnostic sects pretended to give a further significance to Christianity because, as they revealed, they linked it with the oldest religious teachings. The idea was transferred from the Jewish “Cabbala” to Christianity that the Holy Scriptures had a double meaning, an exoteric one, i.e. outwardly and literally according to the text visible in the Holy Scripture; and an additional esoteric or concealed meaning, which is only accessible to the high initiates, the experts in the art of deciphering the secret meaning of the text of the Bible.

As we have seen, many centuries before the appearance of the Cabbalistic works “Sepher-Yetzirah”, “Sepher-ha-Zohar” and others of lesser importance, the oral “Cabbala” was practised among the Hebrews, above all in the secret sects of the higher initiates, whose false interpretations of the Holy Scripture contributed very greatly to turning the Hebrew people away from the truth revealed by God.

Concerning the real origins of Gnosticism, the renowned historians John Yarker and J. Matter agree that Simon the Magician, a Jew converted to Christianity, was the true founder of Gnosticism. Apart from the fact, that he was a mystic cabbalist, he favoured magic and occultism. With a group of Jews he founded a priesthood of “Mysteries”, in which his own teacher Dositheus and his pupils Menandro and Cerinthus figure, who represented a section of his collaborators.

Simon the Magician, founder of the false Gnostic doctrine – the first to disrupt early Christianity – was also one of the pioneers of the Jewish “Fifth Column” that penetrated into the bosom of Holy Church.

The Holy Bible tells us in the Acts of the Apostles how this Jew obtained admittance to Christianity:

Chapter VIII. “9. But there was a certain man, called Simon, which beforetime in the same city used sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one. 12. But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptised, both men and women. 13. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptised, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done. 14. Now when the Apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: 15. Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: 16. (For as yet He was fallen upon none of them; only they were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus.) 17. Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. 18. And when Simon saw that through laying on of the Apostles’ hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money. 19. Saying, ‘Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.’ 20. But Peter said unto him, ‘Thy money perish with thee, because thou thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.’12
And after Peter had blamed Simon, the latter answered: “24. Then answered Simon, and said, ‘Pray ye to the Lord for me, that none of these things which ye have spoken come upon me.’”13

This passage of the New Testament reports to us, how the “Fifth Column” of falsely converted Jews arose and what their mode of thought was. Simon the Magician is converted to Christianity and receives the water of baptism; but then, even in the bosom of the Church, he strives to destroy it and attempts nothing more or less than to buy the favour of the Holy Ghost. After the failure of this attempt in the face of the incorruptibility of the apostle Saint Peter, the supreme head of the Church, he pretends repentance in order afterwards to introduce the inner division of Christianity with the heretical schism of the Gnostics.

Upon this as also on other occasions the Holy Bible raises its warning cry and shows us what would happen in the future, if the Jews belonging to the “Fifth Column” within the Church and the clergy followed the example of Simon the Magician, by being converted to Christianity in order to attempt to destroy it by means of Simony, to divide it through heretical teachings and then to strive to attain the highest honorary offices of the Church by the most diverse means, including that of buying the favour of the Holy Ghost.



Edited for typos.

[bellevuebully]

I want to ask you something, do you really believe they want the truth ?

Why would any group change their ways of piracy and plunder as they are getting fatter ?
That is basically what they are doing, their history shows this.

By accepting Christ and his teachings they would have to throw away their disgusting voodoo books.
They would have no justification for plundering the unsuspecting at that point, as a cohesive group
as well led by Rabbi's.



I look at this whole issue of truth as a broad spectrum MAGNES. Inherantly, none of us really wants the truth.....about God, that is. I don't differetiate Jews in this regard.

You are right though in saying they act as a cohesive unit to acheive their common beliefs and goals, and they do so by means of tools that have been handed down through generations. But that is common to all groups, be it a witch doctor in Haiti, or a gangster in New York. As long as they think they are justified in their belief and supported in their belief by community, they will continue using their 'disgusting voodoo books', whether those be magical spells or a tommy gun.

Also, you made a comment above:

The target is not just Christianity

This is completely true, but only a very small part of the reality, and respectfully, imo, kind of an insignificant part. The greater truth is along the same lines, but much more encompassing, if it is in fact truth that is at stake. I would change your statement to:

The targeters are not just Jews

The jews are, as I stated in my last post, only one of many attackers of truth, which is only found in Christ. You may not believe that, but that is my opinion and position in this discussion. I don't worry about the Jews....that is the job of God Almighty. We may be frustrated with what we see happening on that front, but put into the context of what the testimony of Jesus Christ reveals, God will deal with that in his own time and manner. That does not mean, imo, from a Christian point of view, Israel...right or wrong. That is not my commision as a Christian. My commission is to be salt and light....to be a representative of Christ's grace in a lost world. He never asked me to prove who is a jew and who is the synagogue of Satan. That will be his sovereign right, at the appointed time.

I hope I didn't stray from what you were asking, but to sum up I would reiterate:

Whether Jew, or Gentile, rich or poor, 'righteous' or base........we all start out defying and despising truth (the Word), the only truth that will prove to have any lasting virtue. It is only through a broken-spirited and honest search for the truth of all things....no matter how ugly or displeasing of things it reveals about us personally and collectively...can we allow the spirit of that truth to impart to us the real meaning of truth. As exclusive as that may sound, it is offered to everyone.......even the Jew.


Good discussion MAGNES. After having followed many of your posts I can see you are a very well read and very comprehending student of history. Thanks for all of your input and views.

[DMac]

I recommend reading a few things:

Descarte's The Principles of Philosophy:

Let no one think that I am here to propound a method which everyone ought to follow in order to govern his reason aright; for I have merely the intention of expounding the method I myself have followed. … But no sooner had I finished the course of study at the conclusion of which one is ordinarily adopted into the ranks of the learned, than I began to think of something very different from that. For I became aware that I was involved in so many doubts, so many errors, that all efforts to learn were, as I saw it, of no other help to me than I might more and more discover my ignorance.

I think this forum can understand where Descarte was coming from...(early red pill).

Next is one I highly recommend:

Fear and Trembling
Søren Kierkegaard

There is a copy of the book online available here:

http://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/tkannist/E-texts/Kierkegaard/fear.htm

This is a must read analysis of the biblical story of Abraham and Isaac, with other commentary which connects to this thread (morality).


Also related to the thread, understanding Kant's Categorical Imperative (Kant's method of explaining morality). Agree or disagree with Kant he is an important philosopher to understand.

Kant's main works:
Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785)
Critique of Practical Reason (1788)

Excerpt & interpretation, c/o:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-reason/
The Formula of the Universal Law of Nature

Kant's first formulation of the CI states that you are to “act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law.” (G 4:421) O'Neill (1975, 1989) and Rawls (1989, 1999), among others, take this formulation in effect to summarize a decision procedure for moral reasoning, and I will follow them: First, formulate a maxim that enshrines your reason for acting as you propose. Second, recast that maxim as a universal law of nature governing all rational agents, and so as holding that all must, by natural law, act as you yourself propose to act in these circumstances. Third, consider whether your maxim is even conceivable in a world governed by this law of nature. If it is, then, fourth, ask yourself whether you would, or could, rationally will to act on your maxim in such a world. If you could, then your action is morally permissible.


Kant held that ordinary moral thought recognized moral duties toward ourselves as well as toward others. Hence, together with the distinction between perfect and imperfect duties, we recognize four categories of duties: perfect duties toward ourselves, perfect duties toward others, imperfect duties toward ourselves and imperfect duties toward others. Kant uses four examples, one of each kind of duty, to demonstrate that every kind of duty can be derived from the CI, and hence to bolster his case that the CI is indeed the fundamental principle of morality. To refrain from suicide is a perfect duty toward oneself; to refrain from making promises you have no intention of keeping is a perfect duty toward others; to develop one's talents is an imperfect duty toward oneself; and to contribute to the happiness of others an imperfect duty toward others.

The question in the OP is very deep indeed. For instance, Nietzsche (morality being the subject here), pushed for a revaluation of morality. He claimed we did not know what we thought we knew (ie KANT).

Here are the first two paragraphs from Nietzsche's On the Genealogy of Morals (http://books.google.com/books?id=ur0qo_B1QzwC&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=genealogy+of+morals+preface&source=bl&ots=p8Fs1_E-Lg&sig=0KB6WfqySg0bpUETHbsOscwiTeI&hl=en&ei=VlZATdSsFsmUOse2kK0I&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=genealogy%20of%20morals%20preface&f=false) (1887) which I think are relevant:


"We don't know ourselves, we knowledgeable people – we are personally ignorant about ourselves. And there's good reason for that. We've never tried to find out who we are. How could it ever happen that one day we'd discover our own selves? With justice it's been said that 'Where your treasure is, there shall your heart be also.' Our treasure lies where the beehives of our knowledge stand. We are always busy with our knowledge, as if we were born winged creatures – collectors of intellectual honey. In our hearts we are basically concerned with one thing, to 'bring something home.' As far as the rest of life is concerned, what people call 'experience' – which of us is serious enough for that? Who has enough time? In these matters, I fear, we've been 'missing the point.'

Our hearts have not even been engaged – nor, for that matter, have our ears! We've been much more like someone divinely distracted and self-absorbed into whose ear the clock has just pealed the twelve strokes of noon with all its force and who all at once wakes up and asks himself 'What exactly did that clock strike?' – so we rub ourselves behind the ears afterwards and ask, totally surprised and embarrassed, 'What have we really just experienced?' And more: 'Who are we really?' Then, as I've mentioned, we count – after the fact – all the twelve trembling strokes of the clock of our experience, our lives, our being – alas! in the process we keep losing the count. So we remain necessarily strangers to ourselves, we do not understand ourselves, we have to keep ourselves confused. For us this law holds for all eternity: 'Each man is furthest from himself.' Where we ourselves are concerned, we are not 'knowledgeable people.'"

Nietzsche began his revaluation of morality with the Birth of Tragedy, his first book. Although it was (on the cover) a discussion of art, the book began what became Nietzsche's career as a writer - an attempt to reevaluate what we 'knowers' think we 'know'.

[MAGNES]

DMac is in the thread, we need more of you. ;D

Thanks for the contribution.

These are major philosophical questions that have been dealt with.

Ethics, Morality, Being Good, God. Pre Christian. But influenced Christianity.

Socrates, Plato, Aristotle are the big players here, hard to read stuff too.

My comments are those of a casual reader. ;)

We need some pro's in here. A prof to give us some direction.

[bellevuebully]

Ethics, Morality, Being Good, God. Pre Christian. But influenced Christianity.



Yes these traits are pre-Christian. But as to the inter-relationship between them and Christianity, I would pose a question regarding something that you had eluded to earlier:

Where in time do you place the Old Testement Commandments and what is their role in the context of ethics and morality even if only as an influence, and not neccessarily as an effective means of achieving them? They certainly predate Socrates, Plato, Aristotle.

[Book]

You are right though in saying they act as a cohesive unit to achieve their common beliefs and goals, and they do so by means of tools that have been handed down through generations.



http://www.come-and-hear.com/navigate.html

Read their Talmud then get back to us.

:oo-->

[bellevuebully]

You are right though in saying they act as a cohesive unit to achieve their common beliefs and goals, and they do so by means of tools that have been handed down through generations.



http://www.come-and-hear.com/navigate.html

Read their Talmud then get back to us.

:oo-->


I know all about the Talmud. It is a good example of what I was implying. It is one of their foot holds in justifying the actions they carry out.....'they' being them that lend it credibility and legitimacy. It is no different than the bible being a foothold for Christians to justify the actions they (we) carry out. Whether or not this is done in an honest and pure fashion is another topic all together. I would think that most (if not, many) would agree that at face value, this would include charity, love, humility and forgiveness (I don't think that much can be said with regards to the talmud).

However, I digress.......the context of the post is that all groups have tools which justify and support their actions whether it be a jew, a christian, hindu, buddhist, muslim, or an atheist, whether they be writings, tradition or culture, and in light of that, no one group is any different than another.

Hope that clears up the point I was making.

[Book]

It is no different than the bible being a foothold for Christians to justify the actions they (we) carry out.



You obviously haven't read their Talmud (http://www.come-and-hear.com/navigate.html).

:oo-->

[bellevuebully]

It is no different than the bible being a foothold for Christians to justify the actions they (we) carry out.



You obviously haven't read their Talmud (http://www.come-and-hear.com/navigate.html).

:oo-->


I think you are grossly missing my point.