Jonathan H. B. Lobl

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    10,757

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

  1. Jonathan H. B. Lobl
    That was my own invisible assumption. I have them. I start with my own version of Pantheistic understanding. God did not create us. God became us. Since we are an expresion of God's essence -- what is God? Unity -- neither good nor evil. If we go back and say that God is good; then the whole chain of reased based on God being neither good, nor evil, comes undone. I was thinkiing that since we are a reflection of God's essence; it would follow. If God were all good, we would have to be Good also, becfause that would be what we are. Clearly not the case. Since we are not all evil either, I would say, then neither is God all evil. I hope that isn't to much of a muddle.
  2. Jonathan H. B. Lobl
    My sense of things is that these crimes were committed by people who are evil, stupid and ignorant. Either they thought their ritual was "cool" -- or worse -- they wanted their crimes blamed on the innocent. Note please -- I said: evil, stupid and ignorant. Not sick. Not all awful things are done by sick people. Sometimes, they are evil. there is a difference.
  3. Jonathan H. B. Lobl
    Feeling philosophic about Unity? Here's a thought for you. Why do we forget Unity? Why do we forget? Fear. IMO
  4. Jonathan H. B. Lobl
    What does it look like? Look around at the world. Neither good nor evil. That is what it looks like. Consider the issue of free will. If God were good, we would be good. If God were evil, we would be evil. God is neither good nor evil -- so we get to choose. IMO
  5. Jonathan H. B. Lobl
    My personal philosophy? The Unity behind existence is beyond all dualities, including good and evil. It follows that God -- if we must use that term -- is beyond good and evil -- and is neither. The source of all things is the source of ALL things.
  6. Jonathan H. B. Lobl
    The invisible assumption behind this thread is that God is good. If we drop that assumption, we can also drop a lot of hand wringing about the cruelties and injustice of life. IMO
  7. Jonathan H. B. Lobl
    Hmmm...... Interesting thought.
  8. Jonathan H. B. Lobl
    I don't believe that I need to be sprayed by a skunk; before I can enjoy flowers.
  9. Jonathan H. B. Lobl
    I have been waiting for someone to mention the Agnostics, Atheists and other freethought people. They are also entitled to freedom of religion.
  10. Jonathan H. B. Lobl
    Ray-El ? Any connection to Kal El?
  11. Jonathan H. B. Lobl
    Which earthly court has jurisdiction to bring this suit?
  12. Jonathan H. B. Lobl
    Enforcing orthodoxy isn't that great a deal, if you are on the wrong side.
  13. Jonathan H. B. Lobl
    We are still creating our gods. We just don't know it. Look at the Statue of Liberty. What is it? A personification of Freedom. All that's missing is an altar, for the priests to perform their rituals.
  14. Jonathan H. B. Lobl
    We understand that "Mother Nature" is only a personification of Nature. Somehow, when we say "God" -- people think of a male deity in literal terms. Unless, God is just Mother Nature in drag.
  15. Jonathan H. B. Lobl
    If Nature equals God, I think it would be much simpler to talk about Nature.
  16. Jonathan H. B. Lobl
    Nothing controles Nature. It is. Where Nature comes from is a seperate question. I can respond here, if you like. I think it deserves a seperate thread.
  17. Jonathan H. B. Lobl
    Thank you. I think of ordination as a seed that I have planted within myself. Now comes the life time of cultivation.
  18. Jonathan H. B. Lobl
    I guessed that. It seemed worth responding anyway. I have seen far too many arguments between Atheists -- who don't define the God they don't believe in -- and theists -- who don't define the God that they do believe in. So much heat and so little light. That is the position taken by Prof. Hawkings.
  19. Jonathan H. B. Lobl
    1. Nature is not a "who." 2. Nature does not "controle" the weather. Nature IS the weather.
  20. Jonathan H. B. Lobl
    You don't meet the criteria for hypocrocy. To be a hypocrite, you have to say one thing and do another. You were ordained by a church that asked no questions -- and had no doctrine except to do what's right. Since you did not agree to anything in the way of a statement of faith; it follows that you have broken no agreements. What religion would I call you? Do you need a label? You believe in God. I think that is label enough. Enjoy your ministry. You have a lifetime to work out the details. An ordination is something that we have to grow into. Have patience.
  21. Jonathan H. B. Lobl
    This is a trick question. Atheists don't describe or define the God or gods they don't believe in. They don't believe in any gods. There is no Polytheistic Atheist.. Only Atheists.
  22. Jonathan H. B. Lobl
    Are we making a distinction between being "wrong" and "mistaken?" In any event -- who is the judge of right and wrong? How do we even define these terms in the abstract? Who gets to decide what a "right" to do anything is? In the abstract. speaking of "rights" is not useful.
  23. Jonathan H. B. Lobl
    "The Word" is not in a book. "The Word" can not be heard with the ear or seen with the eye. "The Word" is not damaged by weather. IMO
  24. Jonathan H. B. Lobl
    The Honorary Doctor of Divinity is amusing. Don't put it on your resume.
  25. Jonathan H. B. Lobl
    I think this is more complicated than it needs to be. I am "respectful" of difference.