Phx The War Room: Open Forum

One quick point:

Organized religion does not seperate, doctrine seperates. The organizations have no qualms with each other, but when you get two people together who both believe that God told them different things, there's your seperation. Also there's the believer/nonbeliever seperation that Christ was talking about when he said that his tongue was a double bladed sword set to divide house against house - either you believe or you don't. When both parties are convinced that God is perfect and that he told each different things, there is the problem.

Many people I have come in contact with have subscribed to the idea that all churches are good and are inspired by God and that there are many doors to heaven and each has a church - thus getting around the seperating effect, everyone is right and everyone is still inspired.

[I personally believe that God is not so disorganized as to have many different conflicting doctrines, I would think that truth is truth; wherever it exists it is still truth and only one organization will have it all. (How can you have multiple copies of the same thing and still call them differently?)]

 

Which is why the different scriptures Do, in fact, say different things. This is why there is so much division between religions. If the religion itself, not just the people in that religion, says that ALL other religions are works of Satan (or enter alternate evil entity here) then what are the followers of that religion supposed to think? So doctrine sets up separation. It's only magnified by the inherent stupidity of people.

 

Anyone have any thoughts on the new Falcon unmanned drones that the Defense Department is working on? They should be able to fly at hypersonic speeds for 9000+ miles with any smart bomb in our arsenal (more or less) weighing upto 5.4 tonnes and make it 9000 miles in less than 120 minutes. This drone is scheduled for service in 2025 (along with the new high tech battle suits for the infantry ) Until they get the Falcon up and running, they have a glider prototype they're working on that will do the same thing, though not as fast or as far, that is launched from a platform. This platform can also be used to launch satelites. Or so the theory goes. Mach 12 sub-orbital is what the Falcon will be. Amazing.

This takes warfare to another level.

 

In the words of the great VOID:

What happens on the Falcon stays on the Falcon.

 

Sorry, still do not have any relevant thoughts on the Falcon. Not my area of expertise.

I do have a question, WARDENX.

Krishna who lived before Christ performed all the miracles, etc. In what I remember of my studies of comparative religion (back in the old days) The difference between Jesus Christ and other "christlike" figures (i.e. Krishna) was that Jesus was resurrected from the dead and He was the ultimate blood sacrifice for all sin. It is this that has made Jesus different from all the other Christlike figures.

Now, that is what I remember from my ancient studies. Is there another figure that has been an atonement and has been resurrected?

 

Looks around thread...

 

Jada, each religion has its distinct differences, of course, but Krishna did come back from the dead. He was the avatar of God, divinity made flesh. He wasn't the "son of God." He was God. It's difficult to explain the Hindu religion in short, but that's about the idea of Krishna. He performed all of the miracles the Christ did, long before he did. As for Christ being the Redeemer of Sin and such, that's a matter of interpretation. Krishna also said most of the same things as Christ, tainted with Hindu ideology, of course. Krishna, like the Buddha, also said that the "kingdom of God is within you." Not exactly, but I'm taking liberties with the meanings. You'd have to read them yourself to see my point about what was said, but the theme remains the same. So, yes and no. Krisna was the Great Redeemer of Hindu faith, and built up a huge following that lasts to this day, not unlike Christ.

 

Wardenx, where did you get this info about the Falcon? I would be interested in reading about it. Then after I have a bit more background info, then I would love to discuss it. However, I have always found it an interesting irony that many of the technologies we enjoy today had their roots in wartime development. (I can't think of any specifics off the top of my head, but I do know that there is almost always an invention boom during war.)

One question I would like to pose is, with all these different God-made-flesh figureheads or other religious leaders (i.e. Krishna, Christ, Budda, Mohammed, etc.) how has everyone here decided which to follow? They are all very convincing in their own right, and all claim to be the truth. What reasoning have we used to determine what our beliefs are? (Even if you do not follow any of the above or even consider yourself non-religious, that is also a choice and you must have had some reason for deciding that.)

(Disclaimer: If no one answers this question, that's fine - I know that it may be a very sensitive issue for many, and I ask it more to give opportunity to voice one's opinion and personal experience.)

 

Dang double posts!

 

I can't think of any specifics off the top of my head, but I do know that there is almost always an invention boom during war.

How about nuclear power? I'd call that pretty siginificant.

The Falcon does sound very interesting.

Now, as to how I came to believe what I believe...like many people, I was brought up to believe a certain thing or way. As I grew older, I looked at it with different eyes, and still saw that it made sense. It just makes senes to me.
I took a History of World Religions class in college. VERY VERY interesting stuff. I came out realizing that no one can truly be right, unless they've heard it straight from the Almighty's mouth (which would crush your heart in your chest and explode your head, as learned in Dogma ). You just have to take the route that makes sense to you. Not the easiest route, but the one that makes sense.

BTW, got a personality test type thing for y'all:
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/heaven.php

 

I'm getting to the point where I wish my head would explode from hearing the voice of the almighty (and if it is Alanis Morrisette . . . no need to explode my head, I die right then and there).

If it all comes down to a choice between which doctrine, dogma, gospel, figurehead you decide to follow, then aren't we all gambling on eternity? Is religion truly more than a guarentee to the afterlife or heaven or wherever or is it a code of ethics for every day life?

Just when I think I've got a handle on this, something, or someone ( ) comes along and I've got to rethink the whole thing.

So, I'll be doing a whole lot of research because if I'm going to stand on my faith I want to stand on something solid. No quick sand for me.

EDIT: markup exposing itself

 

So what are we talking about?

 

My friend's husband wrote this for the "tossaway" this week (that's what we call the church bulletin cause after ya read it, ya toss it away)

STEPS TO BECOMING A RESPECTED SPIRITUAL FIGURE

1)Adopt an opinion that's just slightly more conservation than those around you/

2)Assert that opinion quietly but forcefully.

3)If challenged, assert it more forcefully.

4)If challenged, further assert it again . . . and again . . . and again . . . and keep going . . .

oh, c'mon, don't tell me that you haven't ever run into someone that is a respected spiritual figure like the one [described above]. I've even gotten caught up in that pattern at times before, listen to the people around you, especially those that you'd consider a spiritual person. Are they just trumping you on something perceived as more spiritual but in reality is just holding a more conservative [and often a more fundamentalist] view.

If you didn't catch on with the last few steps, the key is the assertion of your view when challenged. What wasn't put on the bottom . . . was that people often mistake the spiritual figure's refusal to budge on a viewpoint as having integrity. Anyone can stick with the first answer. Someone with integrity would actually look at what they believe, and realize that our beliefs/understanding of God are always changing, just because we are over 18 doesn't mean we have it all together. If challenged, listen, be humble, and realize that God often speaks through those we don't think he ever will (or even should). On top of that, a concise (albeit simplistic) opinion can be mistaken as wisdom, too. Sticking with any of the overplayed phrases we've heard thrown around quite often means that we are sticking with the so called "safe" phrases, the higher suited cards, sometimes answers are longer and muddier, and require us to look inward -- none of which our culture (even our church culture) look fondly toward.

what this can lead to (this is a bit stereotypical) is two kinds of people. There are the ones with the hard shells, bumping into people with their hard beliefs and letting everyone know what is wrong with their lives and how they know what is right, on the inside, though it is soft and not fully formed. When challenged, they assert their opinion more forcefully, an intellectual "because". You could even call it a simple, black and white faith that isn't their own, but someone else's they adopted. From experience, those aren't the most enjoyable people to be around.

Then there are the others, soft and moldable on the outside, bleeding out into other people and dynamic. Beliefs and attitudes change rapidly for these people, and are easier to brush up against. At the core, though, are some hard beliefs, though usually just a few -- there just isn't that much black and white out there for them (and in reality, there isn't much out there for any of us). These people are lively to be around, humble and thoughtful, always looking into what is going on both around them and inside themselves. We need to become a group made up more of the softshell/hard core, and become truly deeply spiritual, right? Don't take my word for it -- think about it on your own and with friends.

I was really blown away by this especially in light of the conversations we've been having on this board. I thought I might email him the link for the War Room

 

Is religion truly more than a guarantee to the afterlife or heaven or wherever or is it a code of ethics for every day life?

My feeling is that you get out of it what you put into it. Out of all of the religions I have had an opportunity to study, very few have really come right out and said you didn't in some way have to earn your afterlife, and even those encouraged good works and obedience to a code of ethics. (That's is actually a a really big debate between many Chrstian religions, is salvation free, or do we have to earn it - are we saved by Grace or by works?)

I think that too many people feel that religion is just a guarantee, that by attending church they are issued some kind of free ticket to whatever they believe is afterlife. I've found that many people do not try to follow the precepts of their own religion. Yet they expect that all will be well with them in the end. I feel that if we all practiced our religion day in day out, the world would be a much better place. I've never come across a religion that didn't encourage its people to become better. And that is the purpose of religion, to enlarge one's mind, to expand one's heart, to instill in a person love, hope, faith, patience, meekness, humility, integrity, wisdom and knowledge, gentleness, virtue, charity, and all good and uplifting attributes.

Many religions get so bogged down in rules and regulations that they forget what those rules are for. It is my experience that when a pastor preaches a rule, it is to protect the congregation from a certain danger or harm or otherwise entitle a person for certain benefits. For example, every religion I know of professes some form of the law of chastity, meaning no sexual intercourse outside of the covenant of marriage. Obedience to this law can prevent STD's and teen pregnancy and other accidental child births. Not only that but it prevents the heartbrake that must surely come from giving ones whole self to another only to have them leave you and do the same to another. Lives have been destroyed and families have been torn apart because of misuse of this most sacred and intimate gift of intercourse. On the other hand, obedience to this law can promote love, trust, harmony, and security with one's spouce and it assures that children will grow up with 2 parents who are devoted to them, rather than having other kids in different several places. Though the law of chastity is a code of ethics, it is designed to protect, not limit. All religions have some form of a code of ethics and by adhearing to these principles we are protected from hurt and emotional damage (and the hardening of the heart) that must surely come.

Religion can and should be more than a rule book.

 

perhaps it started as a code of behavior, but became a reward system to guarantee eternal life. and tbh, the thought frightens me to no end. but there it is.

 

I forgot where I found the information about the Falcon but I'll post it as soon as I find it again. I like to keep tabs on the newest events that I can in the government and the military.

Funny how religion can cause such a sweep of discourse across the board.
As mentioned earlier, I think religion is totally personal and all we can do is share with one another and try to grow together. We'll never know what happens when we die until we get there. Until then, I try to be of service to my fellow man and try to make the world a better place, even in some small way. Religion, for me, never enters into the equation. Religion only panders to the masses who don't have the initiative or the fortitude to find the answers they seek within. It's just easier to have someone else tell you what to believe and what to do or not to do. If people don't take up their religion with a ready heart and carry the banner with them always, then they will be doomed to whatever fate awaits them when they die. And that fate, the death of the uninspired soul, is something that I would wish on no one.

 

you brat! i posted about you on other threads and you didn't even say hi
THIS IS WAR! grrrr. lol

 

Hi Princess!! Don't start throwing things I just got on the boards and haven't seen everything yet.

SO.. Hi. Nice to see you, too.

 

now would i do that to you?

i did get my hug and i'm taking you up on the bike ride when i visit at the end of august!

 

On another WAR related note...

Just read on YAHOO...
Confirmed! We killed Saddam's 2 sons in a recent firefight.

Can anyone find a list online of who we got and whos at large?
Im just curious how many are left of the 55.

 

Go Delta.

 

Religion only panders to the masses who don't have the initiative or the fortitude to find the answers they seek within. It's just easier to have someone else tell you what to believe and what to do or not to do.

I can certainly see where you are coming from. Many, many people are too complacent to decide for themselves what to believe and what not to believe and often subscribe to a religion simply because. And I agree that these individuals are in no better position than any agnostic or atheist because they just follow the crowd like a bunch of lemmings. However, that requires us to ask "If they really aren't 'converted' then why do they continue to follow when they are asked to sacrifice time, talents, and energy to their religion?"

I do think that on some level we all ask some "unanswerable" questions, we desire "the answers they [we] seek within" and I think Religion attempts to answer these questions. I think we all want to know "Who am I? Why am I here? What do I have to accomplish? Where will I go after I die?" It is the question that drives us; Religion is just a possible answer.

Like Mel Gibson said in the movie Signs, essentially you have 2 camps of people. Camp one says that we are alone and that there is no divinity in us or our being here and that there is no one out there more powerful than us to whom we can look for guidance and assistance. Camp two says that we are not the product of evolution, that there is a reason for this rock to have developed life, that we are more than just molecules and that when we die that is not the end, but merely a change of sorts, that there is something divine in our creation and existance and that there is something out there who watches over us and is there to help us if we need. Which camp are you in? Do you hope for something more or do you consign yourself to nothingness?

 

I'd have to say that I'm a little of both. But my idea of God comes from the words that most religions use to refer to their diety. Omnipresent, Omnipotent and Omniscient. If God is these things then there is NOTHING that He (I use the male gender for simplicity not belief)is not (omnipresent), nothing that He does not know (omniscient) and nothing that is beyond His power (omnipotent). If you place a distinction between the Creator from the Created, you separate the one from the other. That's not omnipresent. God has to be bigger than what most religions say He is. ALL present, ALL powerful and ALL knowing. That means, right here, right now, God is you and me and this computer and the stars and the planets and the space in between. Just like our little minds can't fathom the concepts of eternity or infinity, so is God outside our ability to understand. We can only KNOW our relationship with God and grow therein.

That's why I can't sya your belief in God is right or wrong. It's yours. That's all that matters. And I'll die protecting your right to both believe it and to voice it for the world to hear.

 

So what's the verdict on the US getting Saddma's two sons? Any opinions?

Personally, I think it's a good day whenever vicious, inhumane people are brought down.

 

I can't believe the words actually came out of my mouth. When I was watching it on the news with my mom, she said "It's too bad we couldn't get information out of them and bring them to justice, etc."

I replied:

"Who cares, it was cheaper to kill them."

I can't believe it said that. I support war when it is just, etc. but I can't believe that saying killing someone was cheaper than a war trial was my response. I guess Jada is becoming Jaded.