Very well thought out and an interesting point of view.
I know some of you are wondering...
There is some religious terminology in this;
"biblical" is fine because it refers to an actual object.
"disciples" is fine because it refers to actual people that can be referenced AND you had previously cited Jesus of Nazareth, so I understood that it was his disciples that you were referring to.
"gospel", there is actually more than one gospel, some of which are included in the Bible, so you should have cited which gospel, as this might be offensive to some people, whether they are religious or not religious, thus creating divisions in society.
Near the end, you had made a reference to a religious concept that might be offensive to some people that do not believe in this concept, whether they are religious or not religious, thus creating divisions in society.
As to gospel in my terms, I am loosely referring to the Nazarene story that propelled itself up the King James Version. The most published book in history I would dare say. The gospel I would loosely form into the words "The good news."
In that accordance to in what you are asking the gospel I am referring to is from the apostles. As I said. Since you do need descriptions of what gospel I am referring to I only state some of the gospels that were included in the bible. As I stated "biblical." Prime examples are the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Let's not forget Paul or Thomas.
Quite frankly I was only answering your question of what they believe in, Jesus himself...or the people who believed.
Yes, I understand my answer was indeed fractional, and the "blood money" remark distasteful, but only the facts for what I was saying was the same reason you gave for the divisions in society; War, terror, hatred and distrust...
In my defense, your question directly incited a answer that could only provide a divisional answer. As the question itself was divisional in it's very nature.
Why are you creating divisions in society from your question?
The basic idea is not to create further division in society. Ideally, what should happen is for persons to heal the divisions that exist in the world today. As I stated previously, we should all endeavor to discover what we share in common with one another, rather than bickering about our (sometimes minor) differences. Should
you feel a need to have a religious belief system, why not try to negotiate a mutually agreeable system with others? Once a significant majority of religious persons in an area decide favourably, (I would recommend 75%, but that's up to you to decide), then the existing religious organization would cease operation, and the new updated organization would begin. Less division.
Suckonthis9 I agree almost wholeheartedly with your wishes of religious ambiguity translating into peaceful agreement from enhanced flexibility.
What I do hold just a tiny qualm with...and forgive my division of course is the concept itself of religion. The mode of thinking I would rather embrace is to rather drop the label of religion altogether. I see we will still have a system of thoughts no matter what we believe but i'd rather drop the word from my vocabulary eternally personally. It's just too heavy with the emotions of man throughout millenia for me to use.
So I agree with you in all other aspects, and I believe you have a intelligent and consciously awakened mind-state towards humanity and harmony. I and just me myself would rather just eliminate that word alone.
Your wit and wisdom continues to have me aware of your writings. Keep going with your alignment
Is it normal that I'm tired of anti-Christians?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
Very well thought out and an interesting point of view.
I know some of you are wondering...
There is some religious terminology in this;
"biblical" is fine because it refers to an actual object.
"disciples" is fine because it refers to actual people that can be referenced AND you had previously cited Jesus of Nazareth, so I understood that it was his disciples that you were referring to.
"gospel", there is actually more than one gospel, some of which are included in the Bible, so you should have cited which gospel, as this might be offensive to some people, whether they are religious or not religious, thus creating divisions in society.
Near the end, you had made a reference to a religious concept that might be offensive to some people that do not believe in this concept, whether they are religious or not religious, thus creating divisions in society.
Why are you creating divisions in society?
--
Immune2BS&way2Illuminated
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
As to gospel in my terms, I am loosely referring to the Nazarene story that propelled itself up the King James Version. The most published book in history I would dare say. The gospel I would loosely form into the words "The good news."
In that accordance to in what you are asking the gospel I am referring to is from the apostles. As I said. Since you do need descriptions of what gospel I am referring to I only state some of the gospels that were included in the bible. As I stated "biblical." Prime examples are the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Let's not forget Paul or Thomas.
Quite frankly I was only answering your question of what they believe in, Jesus himself...or the people who believed.
Yes, I understand my answer was indeed fractional, and the "blood money" remark distasteful, but only the facts for what I was saying was the same reason you gave for the divisions in society; War, terror, hatred and distrust...
In my defense, your question directly incited a answer that could only provide a divisional answer. As the question itself was divisional in it's very nature.
Why are you creating divisions in society from your question?
--
suckonthis9
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
The basic idea is not to create further division in society. Ideally, what should happen is for persons to heal the divisions that exist in the world today. As I stated previously, we should all endeavor to discover what we share in common with one another, rather than bickering about our (sometimes minor) differences. Should
you feel a need to have a religious belief system, why not try to negotiate a mutually agreeable system with others? Once a significant majority of religious persons in an area decide favourably, (I would recommend 75%, but that's up to you to decide), then the existing religious organization would cease operation, and the new updated organization would begin. Less division.
--
Immune2BS&way2Illuminated
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Suckonthis9 I agree almost wholeheartedly with your wishes of religious ambiguity translating into peaceful agreement from enhanced flexibility.
What I do hold just a tiny qualm with...and forgive my division of course is the concept itself of religion. The mode of thinking I would rather embrace is to rather drop the label of religion altogether. I see we will still have a system of thoughts no matter what we believe but i'd rather drop the word from my vocabulary eternally personally. It's just too heavy with the emotions of man throughout millenia for me to use.
So I agree with you in all other aspects, and I believe you have a intelligent and consciously awakened mind-state towards humanity and harmony. I and just me myself would rather just eliminate that word alone.
Your wit and wisdom continues to have me aware of your writings. Keep going with your alignment