Cornelius

Moderator
  • Posts

    3,562
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Cornelius

  1. On 4/26/2022 at 5:31 PM, Coolhand said:

    Since Jesus spoke the words in the new testament, he has died, raised, and been seated on his throne. 

     

    According Ephesians 1 and 2 we are seated with him and he has delegated kingdom power to his body which is us.

     

    This means that some things in the future tense when Jesus spoke them are now past tense to us.

    Considering these things, the message of Matthew 16:19 to us today is:

     

    "I have given you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. What is allowed in heaven, allow on earth. What is not allowed in heaven, do not allow on earth."

     

    Satan will try to snatch that out of your heart and ask you: "Did Jesus really say that?"

     

    Remember, the serpent in like manner asked Eve: "Did God really say that?"

     

    Stand, stand firm, stand therefore.......

    What translation is this?

  2. Tobit 12:15

    15 I am Raphael, one of the seven holy angels who present the prayers of the saints and enter into the presence of the glory of the Holy One.” 

     

    Revelation 8:2–4

     Then I saw the seven angels who stand before God, and seven trumpets were given to them. 3 And another angel came and stood at the altar with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne; 4 and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God.

  3. On 1/22/2022 at 9:00 AM, VonNoble said:

    In the early 1990s I had an occasion to meet with a Catholic priest several times in a social setting.

    He was a well educated man.   And a missionary to Bangladesh for (at that time almost 40 years.)

    He died after more than 50-years of working there.

     

    One of many ideas exchanged was, if he had not been born and raised and educated in the 

    United States, he suspected his religion of choice would be Buddhism.   When I raised an eyebrow

    he added, of course is very much a faithful Catholic.   However, if in his younger days he had

    been exposed to Buddhism he would have, perhaps, chosen that for his path. 

     

    His other surprising statement is that he studied, as a Catholic priest in his mid-life years with 

    some Buddhist monks.   His conclusion is that Buddhism was compatible with most other 

    religions.  One need not give up any base religion to practice Buddhist philosophy.

     

    He also noted that "Everyone is Buddhist in some way" they just don't realize it - yet" 

     

    I have been pondering a good long time about these things.

    I suspect the supposition that early exposure influences ones later choices is likely true. 

    It also seems true that many people of many base religions incorporate some form of or appreciation for

    Buddhism right along with other helpful values.

     

    I am still pondering that last point.   At heart is everyone, in some fashion - Buddhist in thought or action?

    Hey Von. Good to see you. It depends on the form of Buddhism. If it’s purely philosophy sure. I’ve done a fair amount of studying it. I already have my own tradition to worry about and work on. Working on following tw philosophies even if they are compatible seems like too much.  

  4. 1 hour ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

     

     

    I may be misreading this.  It looks a lot like a common argument. 

    Looks can often be deceiving.

     

    Quote

    Hitler was not an Atheist.  He was Catholic.  The Vatican had no difficulty working with his government.  He was never excommunicated.  The majority of Germans at that time, were Catholic or Lutheran.  The German Army belt buckles said, in translation, "God is with us."

    Hitler officially, like the rest of the Nazi Party, was a Positive Christian. This was the official religion of the party. A form of Christianity that they invented which was anti-semetic and "pure." Kind of like Identity Christianity in modern times.

    The SS followed a pseudo-pagan/christian religion that was taught by Himmler and created by his " religious advisor" Karl Maria Wiligut. In which "Krist" was an ancient germanic pagan god stolen by the jews. There were many ages such as the one where mutated man creatures that eventually came to be called dwarves and giants existed. Karl Maria Wiligut himself was from an ancient secret line of kings and wizards dating to prehistory that had magical genetic memories of the past making him a prophet. It turns out he was insane and later put in a psych hospital to Himmler's great embarrassment. Hitler also dabbled with these beliefs until Karl was hospitalized for insanity.  Then he was furious with Himmler for the bad optics. There were also other beliefs such as the one about Vril Energy from the inner earth beings which was championed by the Thule Society. Mind you all of this is off the top of my head so please excuse any mistakes.

    Quote

    I suspect that you are conflating Atheism with Communism.  After Russia and China became Communist, their official ideology included Atheism.  Still, there is a distinction to be made.  Communism is not Godless.  It simply substitutes the State for God.  In practice, Mao, Lenin and Pol Pot became gods themselves.

     

    The Communist States did not commit their crimes in the name of Atheism.  It was all in the name of Communism.

     

     

    This is splitting hairs and looking for an excuse. You wouldn't accept this answer from a religious as you accuse them. If you can lay any atrocity at the feet of the religious, as you have done many times on this forum, then Atheism has to accept it's bad apples. And the apples are bad indeed, with the death count at hundreds of millions by this point. It's only fair right?

     

    In modern times China, an atheist communist country, is currently torturing and killing Christians. It is banning their Bible and burning their churches down. This of course doesn't compare to the millions of Uigur Muslims currently held in concentration camps and having genocide committed among them.

    Quote

    We still have the option of blaming Atheism for all the crimes of the Communist States -- IF -- you are willing to lay the crimes of all Christians, at the feet of their Christian faith.  If you please, let us be consistent.

     

    This is exactly what I am asking you to do here. I have seen you do this with your cohorts ad nauseum on this forum alone. It's only fair if you levy these charges against them to use the same measure against yourself.

     

    That actually isn't my point. It's actually the opposite. I hope you can reread what I wrote before with better understanding now. You can't blame atheism or the religious because it's just Humans committing these acts. 

     

    To use a quote I heard once from a Rockstar "If an ** with a weapon is going to go out and kill a person or people cause another ** with a guitar told him too then they were an ** to begin with and would have done it anyway."

    That made sense to me at the time. 

     

  5. On 1/19/2021 at 10:16 PM, Pete said:

    😥

    I just wanted to take a second as I realized that my post probably came off much harsher than was intended. I was a little confused at first at the reaction to it. I thought I should clarify that what I said is a basic tenet of the forum that is a part of its foundation. This is an interfaith forum that has open discussion. If you do not want your post commented directly on you can put it in the open pulpit area. So what I meant by writing it that way is that this principle is unquestionable and not open to discussion or debate. I didn't mean it to come across as angry or harsh.

  6. On 1/25/2021 at 8:41 AM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

    If the whole world went Atheist, would this be paradise?  No, it wouldn't.  The world would still be a mess, because people would still be a mess.  Greedy, selfish and all the rest.  I think the world would be less messy.  Or at least messy in less destructive ways.  We can debate this.

     

    :bye:

     

    :mellow:

     

     

     

    I was with you right up until that point. I think a few seconds of critical thought and a review at Atheisms record over the past century and a half would prove otherwise. So instead of a belief or nonbelief problem. It might just be a human one. I might discuss further.

  7. 10 hours ago, damnthing said:

    "So if someone wears a cross they should put it inside their shirt? How about a star of david? "

    Did not say or suggest that...at all

    "I thought it was appropriate to wear necklaces outside of the shirt and not hidden away?"

    It's neither appropriate nor inappropriate, wearing a cross, any religious symbol, was not my point.

    "Or is this just your special rule for religious pendants?"

    Intentional or not this is what came across as 'attitude'. In any case perhaps go back an read the conversations leading up to my comments, it's about context.

    "Is it only the cross?

    It is indeed, in this particular case. It's a bout a person who is shilling his product (which, while another discussion altogether, is perfectly acceptable), but wearing his cross as he does on his tv ads is done for one reason only, to signify HIS religious position. Note any recent pictures of him in Washington or elsewhere, not a sign of the cross (pun intended). His use of the cross was a signal, it was indeed a prop, a way to let people know where he stands on major issues in the hopes that they will 'support' him by buying his product. If you have read anything about him you'll know that his business practices defy his supposed x tian principles.

     

    As this is the first time 'we' have chatted I'll chalk up both our comments as simple not being able to read the other's intent clearly due to unfamiliarity and chat-room sound deadening.

     

    And Jonathan's take was dead accurate of my intent and probably much more clearly stated than I could/would have. But then he's more practiced in the art of both philosophy and nuance. I tend to be more direct, think sledge hammer whether necessary or not.

    It's fine, it happens all the time. I am aware that I can come across as blunt and abrasive as well. The only emotion I assure you that was attached to my post was bewilderment. those were merely some of the many questions that flitted across my mind. What I've gathered is your problem isn't necessarily with people wearing their preferred religious symbol but perceived disingenuous display of their preferred religious symbols.

     

    I am still confused as to some of your specifications on the appropriate display techniques. It seemed like you were implying it's ok for people to wear a cross but they must wear it hidden inside their clothing unless it's a part of their uniform or accidentally falls out. 

     

    "Intentional or not this is what came across as 'attitude'. In any case perhaps go back an read the conversations leading up to my comments, it's about context."

    Well if this is indeed what you were stating this would be your own special rule for religious pendants because it is not societal or held by many and may be entirely peculiar to you. 

     

    Also if I'm here I've read the conversations.

     

    Thank you for the clarifications. I hope you soon realize that my straightforwardness and lack of tact is not an attitude just a flaw of my character. I come off much better in person where body language and tone come into play. I find through text online almost always I am misunderstood and have emotions and motivations projected onto my statements. I am actually very well received in person by most people and adored I assure you.

  8. 7 hours ago, damnthing said:

    Come at the question without the attitude and I'll be glad to clairify

    The only attitude is the one you are projecting onto the text. Try reading it without attaching emotional motivation and just read the text as plain inquisitive questions. I even added in that I was "just genuinely confused by what you are getting at here" to demonstrate that I was simply seeking clarification.

  9. 3 hours ago, damnthing said:

    Yes but...I'm not talking about someone who wears a cross on a chain that maybe visible depending upon what the wearer is wearing, nor am I talking about nuns or priests or the like who wear a cross outside of their clothing as part of their uniform. Not even talking about a person who, as a result of some physical maneuvering has flipped their cross onto the outside of their shirt,etc. What I am talking about is someone who buttons his shirt up to to the top button with the cross intentionally 'isolated' from accidentally NOT being seen.

     

    I get the yarmulke, it's part of a person's daily dress and will be visible, not to show off but because of their religious requirements. Wearing that cross outside of the shirt intentionally is no less than praying on the street, matthew 6:5

    So if someone wears a cross they should put it inside their shirt? How about a star of david? How about a baphomet? or just a regular necklace? I thought it was appropriate to wear necklaces outside of the shirt and not hidden away? Or is this just your special rule for religious pendants? Is it only the cross? what about a wiccan necklace?

     

    I'm just genuinely confused by what you are getting at here.

  10. Dan has every right, like every other poster, to post his views, beliefs, and opinions on any part of this forum as long as it follows the TOS. Just because a forum is labeled atheist doesn’t mean you have the right to silence him here or he is somehow banned from this part of the forum. End of story. Period. You are out of line. 

  11. 7 hours ago, Dan56 said:

     

    I think objective moral standards are generally based on societal norms of common decency. Whereas people who believe in a higher power tend to have subjective moral standards, which are influenced by a deity. The difference may only be determined by what's culturally acceptable verses what's divinely inspired. Subjective morality is dependent on what a group thinks or believes, and those who do not hold to those standards are wrong. Objective morals are more independently arrived at, and are subject to change depending on time, culture, situations, environment, or conditions. Perhaps the rest is semantics, there is a cross-over where objective and subjective morality meet, ie; we all agree that murder is evil and the golden rule is good... The two can be united by instituting some common sense. "Genocide is not good" is really dependent on why and what group of people are being wiped-out. If their only intent is harm, evil, and destruction, then genocide could be interpreted as a positive moral standard, or at least a necessary one.. jmo

     

     

    I would argue the opposite. 

  12. 7 hours ago, Key said:

    Are you saying because someone doesn't believe in God, they shouldn't know right from wrong, or good from bad? That seems to be what your implying with your repetitious query.

    It can certainly appear that way so I should probably write some sort of disclaimer. I forget how sensitive people are nowadays. I am not in any way saying an atheist can't be moral or have a good moral code. I am not saying they cannot conduct themselves in a moral fashion. Personally I believe we all have a basic morality written on our hearts. But I also believe in the existence of an objective moral standard. Atheists are usually good people with good intentions. You won't hear me say otherwise.

  13. 12 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

     

     

    Well?  Despite what you seem to think, I have done my best to answer your questions.  I don't know what you want.

     

     

    Have you stated what objective moral standard you abide by as an atheist and use to make your moral statements?

    I've simply restated questions you have failed to directly address. I didn't mean to upset you. If I did I apologize. I am just wondering from an atheistic viewpoint how do they justify morality being anything but subjective.

  14. 30 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

     

     

    By what moral standard is God good?  Aside from the fact that Scripture says that God is good.  As to the objective part -- all Scripture was created by people.  Like it or not -- objectivity has cultural deficits.  The people who created these Scriptures, projected their moral deficits onto their God.

     

    My morals are better than God's.  I at least know that slavery is wrong -- and that women and gay people are fully Human.  I also know that rape is not a property crime, against a woman's father.

     

     

    I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.
     
     

     

     

    By what objective moral standard as an atheist do you call those things wrong or judge yourself to hold “better morals?”

  15. 17 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

     

     

     

    I read the Book.  Let us count the ways.  Genocide  is not good.  Neither is slavery.  Or Homophobia.  Or Women as property.  Or Sadism.  Or blood lust.

     

    :whist:

    As an atheist by what objective moral standard do you determine those to be “bad” things?

     

    So I’m assuming you are unwilling to engage in the thought experiment. 

     

    By what objective moral standard do you as an Atheist obtain and maintain the characterization of monster?

  16. 7 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

     

    What would you like me to say?  If we are speaking in the abstract, of a god, we might have something to discuss.  You're not.  You mean the Bible God.  If this entity were real -- it would be a monster in any context.

     

    :whist:

    Are you willing to entertain the thought experiment?

     

    As an Atheist by what objective moral standard do you obtain and maintain the characterization of Monster?