Atheists can not have absolute morality
Without God, absolute morality is a foreign concept to an Atheist. If the Atheist claims he can live a moral life without God - how does he define morals and what is right or wrong? If he determines what is right and wrong, does that give him permission to do as he wishes? And kill and murder people because he is only accountable to NOONE? The Atheist becomes his/her own God and justifies murder and hate.
They believe morals are relative and that humans dictate morals. They don't believe we have consciences and that society determines morals. I suppose they think the Law is what gives a human being sanity, because they don't have the heart and conscience to make moral decisions. Of course, a conscience was given to us by God and all Atheists vehemently deny we are moral agents!
How can any Atheist be moral? By what standards? How does that word even float around in Atheists head if is impossible for them to have absolute morals? They don't believe in God and inward persuasion/divine persuasion and conscience, so they believe it is ok for humans to do as they wish and there will be no consequences
before an all powerful creator.
The Atheist position is that we are a chemical accident without moral capability. So we act according to societies norms and we act like robots. There is no room for individuality or morality is atheism. The Atheism defeats the idea of individuality because the Atheist believes we are the result of an accidental cosmic explosion. They will fight you to the death and say they don't believe it, but that was what their whole ideology revolves around. There is no intelligent creator who gave us personality and moral capability - instead we are to conform to societies notions of morality, which is relative. Sorry, but "moral relativity," is a big oxymoron. There is no way an Atheist can have morals by their own terms. Morality, all morality - is derived from God and the conscience he gave us.
God is what keeps people from sinning, not people. No one can do good without the grace of God. To believe in moral relativity is pointless and it comes up short with no ultimate answer or accountability.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Huckabee, Mccain are to blame for dead soldiers - will America ever wake up?
These guys are no different then George Bush. They support Bush for his illegal and immoral war, and they want to propagate the war by maximizing troop levels. They continue to vocalize their nonsensical dogma about the "War on terrorism," a war which has cost the life of 4,000 dead americans and hundreds of thousands if innocent iraqi civilians. A war that has drowned the american economy, has put us trillions of dollars in debt, and a war that wasn't based upon the principles of the constitution.
I ask the American people to wake and smell the coffee. New Hampshire has already made an incredulous mistake by voting for Mccain. Mccain is soft on immigration and wants to continue an illegal and dogmatic war. These candidates, besides Ron Paul - all want to continue to lie to the American people and use the ideology of freedom to convince people we need to be in iraq longer. How sad is this? Freedom is an abstract concept - and it is the people of new hampshire who chant: "Live Free or Die.." - isn't that funny?
I ask the American people to wake and smell the coffee. New Hampshire has already made an incredulous mistake by voting for Mccain. Mccain is soft on immigration and wants to continue an illegal and dogmatic war. These candidates, besides Ron Paul - all want to continue to lie to the American people and use the ideology of freedom to convince people we need to be in iraq longer. How sad is this? Freedom is an abstract concept - and it is the people of new hampshire who chant: "Live Free or Die.." - isn't that funny?
John McCain, Rudy Juliani, Mike Huckabee - War Mongers!
One question to the people of new hampshire: Why do you continue to vote for a presidential candidate who has no intention of ending a bloody war over seas? You all claim to be independents, but you vote like typical neo-conservatives. John Mccain said in a debate that he didn't care if we were in IRAQ 10 years or 100 years. When will the American people wake up and reject the war-ridden ways of politicians? Mccain doesn't mind if thousands of more soldiers die for a petty political cause, even though the war was illegal from the get-go. The same people who say .. "We can't leave now or it'll be a mess," are the exact same people who said they had weapons of mass destruction. Why do the American people continue to buy into nonsense? John Mccain among others is nothing more then the shadow of George Bush. A police-the-world mentality and thousands of dead americans at the expense of a pathetic foreign policy.
All of the republicans with exception to Ron Paul, want to extend the war, likewise democrats. Ron Paul is the only candidate who has the wisdom to see the war is pointless, dogmatic, and to no avail. He is the only candidate who would bring the troops home immediately, save trillions of dollars, and keep the govt. out of your business. What sane and logical person wants to continue the way we are? We Print Money for a stupid war, let the dollar lose its value and become more inflated, and watch the economy go down the drain. Ron Paul is the only one who wants to obey the constitution instead of waging illegal and undeclared wars.
The American people who vote for war-monger candidates are partially responsible for the blood that is shed over there. Until Americans wake up and make it clear that they won't tolerate the war anymore, they are responsible for it. If you support a candidate who funds the war - then you are essentially supporting the war which is based upon lies.
All of the republicans with exception to Ron Paul, want to extend the war, likewise democrats. Ron Paul is the only candidate who has the wisdom to see the war is pointless, dogmatic, and to no avail. He is the only candidate who would bring the troops home immediately, save trillions of dollars, and keep the govt. out of your business. What sane and logical person wants to continue the way we are? We Print Money for a stupid war, let the dollar lose its value and become more inflated, and watch the economy go down the drain. Ron Paul is the only one who wants to obey the constitution instead of waging illegal and undeclared wars.
The American people who vote for war-monger candidates are partially responsible for the blood that is shed over there. Until Americans wake up and make it clear that they won't tolerate the war anymore, they are responsible for it. If you support a candidate who funds the war - then you are essentially supporting the war which is based upon lies.
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Jesus is not God
In this particular post, I am going to explain why I do not believe Jesus is God. I am a Christian and will use nothing but the bible to support this claim. It is true that the bible is "open," to interpretation and I have no problem with an in depth analysis, but this does not negate the fact that the new testament gives clear evidence and testimony on the nature of who Jesus is and who God is. In this post I am going to use both the new and old testament to shed light on this controversial issue. I do not merely hope to change people's minds instantaneously, but my main goal is to openly challenge and discuss this issue as Christians should do.
Many Christians claim that Jesus is equal to God in nature and they claim he is the one true God, and if this is true, this would imply that Jesus is the creator and author of all things. So if we turn to the book of Corinthians we can get a clear picture of who Jesus is and how his nature is differentiated from God the Father.
5For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"), 6yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.
I Corinthians 8:5-6
Paul is writing to the Church of Corinth in this particular passage, and he is acknowledging the fact that many people will worship all sorts of fales idols and false Gods, Lords, etc. He then CLARIFIES who the one TRUE GOD is and then he states who the one true LORD is. Not only does he differentiate the One God and One Lord, but he uses prepositions such as "from," and "through," when referring to both the One God and One Lord.
"From whom all things come," is descriptive language referring to God the Father. This clearly shows us that all things ORIGINATE FROM God the Father, and that God is the author and CREATOR of ALL THINGS.(From WHOM are all things) If Jesus was God, you would think Paul would have said "There is One God, the Lord Jesus Christ, from whom are all things," but he did not mention Jesus. In fact, he differentiated Jesus from the Father by using the preposition of "through whom are all things," when referring to Jesus. This shows us that Paul is telling us that God the Father is different from the Lord Jesus Christ. There is but ONE GOD, and there is ONE LORD. It does not say 2 beings in ONE GOD, nor does it say 2 beings in One LORD, it says ONE LORD AND ONE GOD. To understand this objectively clearly shows us that God and Jesus are different.
So you might ask, just who is Jesus? What is the nature of Jesus? Well that is easy. Paul tells us that Jesus is a MAN and that he is the mediator between men and God,(Tim 2:5) and this is why he uses the word "through," when referring to Jesus. The word THROUGH implies that something is being accomplished via a 3rd party. God the Father CREATED the world and accomplishes his kingdom THROUGH JESUS CHRIST. If Jesus was God as many claim, then why doesn't the bible state he is the author and creator of all things? It said all things were created through/by/for Jesus, but FROM God the Father. Big difference.
5For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6who gave himself as a ransom for all men
I Timothy 2:5
As we see, Jesus gave us a ransom by dying for our sins and for the rest of the world, but he did this because God sent him to do so. This was not his own will but the will of God the Father as stated by John in the new testament. Let's examine the particular passage I am speaking of.
38"For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.
John 6:38
Here we see that Jesus is speaking, and he clearly informs us of his mission and who is behind it. He makes it known that his life on this earth is not chosen by him, nor is it directed by him, but it is directed by God the Father. It is God the Father who is working through Christ to accomplish his will. Christ is not working his own will, but doing everything according to the one who sent him, which is none other but God the Father. If Jesus is God as many Christians seem to presuppose, then why would Jesus do someone elses will? Why wouldn't Jesus just do his own will if he is God the Father? Why would God have to do someone elses will? That makes no sense. There is true clarity when we realize God created and CHOSE Jesus to do what he has done, and without the mercy of God the Father, there couldn't be a figure such as Jesus to have ever existed.
Now many Christians say that Jesus, while on earth, was a man and that he wasn't God. This amazes me and it almost makes Jesus seem like he is talking with a forked tongue and giving some kind of double talk. Why would Jesus state the Father is greater then him as a man? Just to confuse us? That makes no sense. Besides, why do they say "Jesus as a man," when thats all Jesus has ever been, a man! He now has a ressurected Body, but he is still a man in the spiritual sense. Physically, no, but Jesus has never been referred to as the One God, so where are people getting this idea from?
What's truly amazing is the paramaters this particular passage gives:
28"You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. 29I have told you now before it happens, so that when it does happen you will believe. 30I will not speak with you much longer, for the prince of this world is coming. He has no hold on me, 31but the world must learn that I love the Father and that I do exactly what my Father has commanded me.
John 14:28-29
Jesus is talking about his ascension and ressurection which was accomplished by the power of God. He also says that if anyone TRULY LOVES HIM, they would be happy because he is going to the Father and the Father is GREATER THEN HIM. Jesus is saying... "Be happy for me, because I am going to be with someone GREATER then I," and we all can see clearly he is speaking of the Father. Jesus is stating an inferiority complex in relation to the Father. Furthermore, Christ is undoubtedly made subject and subordinate to the Father at the consomation of the ages. This is proven in the book of Corinthians. Lets take a look:
27: "For God has put all things in subjection under his feet." But when it says, "All things are put in subjection under him," it is plain that he is excepted who put all things under him.
28: When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things under him, that God may be everything to every one.
I Corinthians 27-28
In Line 28, we see that Christ (The Son Himself) will be SUBJECTED to "HIM,"(God) who had originally put all things under Christ. So we see that Jesus is subordinate to God the Father even at the end of the ages. Thus, it is difficult to argue that Jesus acts as a regular man and seperately as God, simply because Jesus is proven to be SUBORDINATE TO GOD THE FATHER. I ask anyone how Jesus can be God if he is lower then God the Father? How can God be subject to another God? That makes no sense whatsoever. There is only One God, and when we start assuming that there is three in one, the bible clearly refutes this mathematical absurdity as shown in the previous passage.
Furthermore, we all know that Jesus called out to the Father and prayed to the Father and even asked God.. "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" Was Jesus talking to himself or was he talking to God? If he was talking to God and you are claiming that he is God, then why is he speaking out loud? Just to hear himself? If he was truly God, he could ask himself privately. By speaking out loud we can clearly see he was addressing a seperate entity and if someone claims Jesus is God, they have to somehow justify Jesus praying to himself! How unbelievable is this? This destroys the whole foundation of Christianity. It is God the Father who ROSE JESUS UP and let Jesus ascend into heaven. How can Christians believe have any faith if they believe Jesus was raising himself? How easy that would be?? But he wasn't, and this is why he kept praying and calling out to God. He even states that he ASCENDS unto HIS GOD AND OUR GOD, AND SYNONYMOUSLY "UNTO HIS FATHER AND OUR FATHER."
"I ascend unto My Father, and your Father; and to My God, and your God."
John 20:17
Jesus is referring to his ressurection. If he ascended to his Father and OUR Father, then who raised him? Obviously he didn't, because he didn't ascend to himself. That's arrogant and eliminates the notion of faith. If you have faith in God, he will RAISE you the same way he ROSE JESUS CHRIST.
29Peter and the other apostles replied: "We must obey God rather than men! 30The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead—whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree.
Acts 5:29-30
We see again that the "God of our fathers," raised Jesus from the dead. Who is the God of the Fathers? That's quite simple, the God of Abraham, Moses, Isaiah, David. These are prophets of the old testament and God spoke to his people through them as shown in the Old testament, but God clearly revealed himself through Jesus Christ as shown in the new testament. The book of hebrews makes this clear
1 In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets;
2: but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.
Hebrews 1:1-2
We see that God APPOINTED JESUS as the HEIR of all things. This means that Jesus recieved everything he got from God the Father. If this is true, then how can Jesus be God if he had to recieve these things? God the Father doesn't recieve things from someone higher up then him, does he? Of course not. God created Jesus and gave COMMANDMENTS TO JESUS. I am going to dip into the old testament and show you the "God of our Fathers," is the God of Jesus Christ as stated in Hebrews 1:1.
Jesus is referred to as a PROPHET as shown in the book of dueteronomy, chapter 18, verses 18-19.
18: I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brethren; and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him.
19: And whoever will not give heed to my words which he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him.
Deuteronomy 18:18-19
Here we can see that the LORD GOD is going to raise a prophet up(JESUS) and will GIVE COMMANDS TO JESUS so JESUS will know what to say and DO. This is prophetic scripture and clearly indicates God is ONE BEING. God is speaking in the singular and says .. "I." He does not say "WE," but he says .."I." which is individualistic and demonstrates his SUPREME and EXCLUSIVE PERSONALITY.
6 Then he said, "I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob." At this, Moses hid his face, because he was afraid to look at God.
Exodus 3-6
I am the LORD, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God. I will strengthen you, though you have not acknowledged me
Isaiah 45:5
Here now, O Israel, the decrees and laws I am about to teach you. Follow them so that you may live and may go in and take possession of the land that the LORD, the God of your fathers, is giving you.
Deuteronomy 4:1
So we see that there is one God and he says .."I am the LORD GOD, and there is NO OTHER." How can we reconcile this with 3 gods in one being? That eliminates the purpose of there being ONE GOD. Or to say 3 BEINGS in ONE God would make no sense as well, because God claims he is ONE. He says .. "I," and this does not denote triunity, but singularity! If we obey the rules of language, the word "I," is denoting one individual. For example, When "I," give my opinion on something, that clearly means that I, Dave, one individual, is giving an opinion and I am not speaking for any other beings other then myself. I am not speaking for people, but I speaking my opinion towards people. In the Old Testament, God is a singular pronoun and the word "God," does not denote any type of plurality. The hebrew language confirms this.
I'll close this post off by presenting the true meaning of Good, and that is God. Jesus rejects the notion that he is GOOD and states that only GOD ALONE IS GOOD. Thus, this clearly shows Jesus is NOT GOD nor does he claim to be GOOD.
17As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
18"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone.
Mark 10:17-18
I hope you found this post informative and interesting, and feel free to leave any feedback. I will definitely add more to this topic in the coming future.
Many Christians claim that Jesus is equal to God in nature and they claim he is the one true God, and if this is true, this would imply that Jesus is the creator and author of all things. So if we turn to the book of Corinthians we can get a clear picture of who Jesus is and how his nature is differentiated from God the Father.
5For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"), 6yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.
I Corinthians 8:5-6
Paul is writing to the Church of Corinth in this particular passage, and he is acknowledging the fact that many people will worship all sorts of fales idols and false Gods, Lords, etc. He then CLARIFIES who the one TRUE GOD is and then he states who the one true LORD is. Not only does he differentiate the One God and One Lord, but he uses prepositions such as "from," and "through," when referring to both the One God and One Lord.
"From whom all things come," is descriptive language referring to God the Father. This clearly shows us that all things ORIGINATE FROM God the Father, and that God is the author and CREATOR of ALL THINGS.(From WHOM are all things) If Jesus was God, you would think Paul would have said "There is One God, the Lord Jesus Christ, from whom are all things," but he did not mention Jesus. In fact, he differentiated Jesus from the Father by using the preposition of "through whom are all things," when referring to Jesus. This shows us that Paul is telling us that God the Father is different from the Lord Jesus Christ. There is but ONE GOD, and there is ONE LORD. It does not say 2 beings in ONE GOD, nor does it say 2 beings in One LORD, it says ONE LORD AND ONE GOD. To understand this objectively clearly shows us that God and Jesus are different.
So you might ask, just who is Jesus? What is the nature of Jesus? Well that is easy. Paul tells us that Jesus is a MAN and that he is the mediator between men and God,(Tim 2:5) and this is why he uses the word "through," when referring to Jesus. The word THROUGH implies that something is being accomplished via a 3rd party. God the Father CREATED the world and accomplishes his kingdom THROUGH JESUS CHRIST. If Jesus was God as many claim, then why doesn't the bible state he is the author and creator of all things? It said all things were created through/by/for Jesus, but FROM God the Father. Big difference.
5For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6who gave himself as a ransom for all men
I Timothy 2:5
As we see, Jesus gave us a ransom by dying for our sins and for the rest of the world, but he did this because God sent him to do so. This was not his own will but the will of God the Father as stated by John in the new testament. Let's examine the particular passage I am speaking of.
38"For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.
John 6:38
Here we see that Jesus is speaking, and he clearly informs us of his mission and who is behind it. He makes it known that his life on this earth is not chosen by him, nor is it directed by him, but it is directed by God the Father. It is God the Father who is working through Christ to accomplish his will. Christ is not working his own will, but doing everything according to the one who sent him, which is none other but God the Father. If Jesus is God as many Christians seem to presuppose, then why would Jesus do someone elses will? Why wouldn't Jesus just do his own will if he is God the Father? Why would God have to do someone elses will? That makes no sense. There is true clarity when we realize God created and CHOSE Jesus to do what he has done, and without the mercy of God the Father, there couldn't be a figure such as Jesus to have ever existed.
Now many Christians say that Jesus, while on earth, was a man and that he wasn't God. This amazes me and it almost makes Jesus seem like he is talking with a forked tongue and giving some kind of double talk. Why would Jesus state the Father is greater then him as a man? Just to confuse us? That makes no sense. Besides, why do they say "Jesus as a man," when thats all Jesus has ever been, a man! He now has a ressurected Body, but he is still a man in the spiritual sense. Physically, no, but Jesus has never been referred to as the One God, so where are people getting this idea from?
What's truly amazing is the paramaters this particular passage gives:
28"You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. 29I have told you now before it happens, so that when it does happen you will believe. 30I will not speak with you much longer, for the prince of this world is coming. He has no hold on me, 31but the world must learn that I love the Father and that I do exactly what my Father has commanded me.
John 14:28-29
Jesus is talking about his ascension and ressurection which was accomplished by the power of God. He also says that if anyone TRULY LOVES HIM, they would be happy because he is going to the Father and the Father is GREATER THEN HIM. Jesus is saying... "Be happy for me, because I am going to be with someone GREATER then I," and we all can see clearly he is speaking of the Father. Jesus is stating an inferiority complex in relation to the Father. Furthermore, Christ is undoubtedly made subject and subordinate to the Father at the consomation of the ages. This is proven in the book of Corinthians. Lets take a look:
27: "For God has put all things in subjection under his feet." But when it says, "All things are put in subjection under him," it is plain that he is excepted who put all things under him.
28: When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things under him, that God may be everything to every one.
I Corinthians 27-28
In Line 28, we see that Christ (The Son Himself) will be SUBJECTED to "HIM,"(God) who had originally put all things under Christ. So we see that Jesus is subordinate to God the Father even at the end of the ages. Thus, it is difficult to argue that Jesus acts as a regular man and seperately as God, simply because Jesus is proven to be SUBORDINATE TO GOD THE FATHER. I ask anyone how Jesus can be God if he is lower then God the Father? How can God be subject to another God? That makes no sense whatsoever. There is only One God, and when we start assuming that there is three in one, the bible clearly refutes this mathematical absurdity as shown in the previous passage.
Furthermore, we all know that Jesus called out to the Father and prayed to the Father and even asked God.. "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" Was Jesus talking to himself or was he talking to God? If he was talking to God and you are claiming that he is God, then why is he speaking out loud? Just to hear himself? If he was truly God, he could ask himself privately. By speaking out loud we can clearly see he was addressing a seperate entity and if someone claims Jesus is God, they have to somehow justify Jesus praying to himself! How unbelievable is this? This destroys the whole foundation of Christianity. It is God the Father who ROSE JESUS UP and let Jesus ascend into heaven. How can Christians believe have any faith if they believe Jesus was raising himself? How easy that would be?? But he wasn't, and this is why he kept praying and calling out to God. He even states that he ASCENDS unto HIS GOD AND OUR GOD, AND SYNONYMOUSLY "UNTO HIS FATHER AND OUR FATHER."
"I ascend unto My Father, and your Father; and to My God, and your God."
John 20:17
Jesus is referring to his ressurection. If he ascended to his Father and OUR Father, then who raised him? Obviously he didn't, because he didn't ascend to himself. That's arrogant and eliminates the notion of faith. If you have faith in God, he will RAISE you the same way he ROSE JESUS CHRIST.
29Peter and the other apostles replied: "We must obey God rather than men! 30The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead—whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree.
Acts 5:29-30
We see again that the "God of our fathers," raised Jesus from the dead. Who is the God of the Fathers? That's quite simple, the God of Abraham, Moses, Isaiah, David. These are prophets of the old testament and God spoke to his people through them as shown in the Old testament, but God clearly revealed himself through Jesus Christ as shown in the new testament. The book of hebrews makes this clear
1 In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets;
2: but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.
Hebrews 1:1-2
We see that God APPOINTED JESUS as the HEIR of all things. This means that Jesus recieved everything he got from God the Father. If this is true, then how can Jesus be God if he had to recieve these things? God the Father doesn't recieve things from someone higher up then him, does he? Of course not. God created Jesus and gave COMMANDMENTS TO JESUS. I am going to dip into the old testament and show you the "God of our Fathers," is the God of Jesus Christ as stated in Hebrews 1:1.
Jesus is referred to as a PROPHET as shown in the book of dueteronomy, chapter 18, verses 18-19.
18: I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brethren; and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him.
19: And whoever will not give heed to my words which he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him.
Deuteronomy 18:18-19
Here we can see that the LORD GOD is going to raise a prophet up(JESUS) and will GIVE COMMANDS TO JESUS so JESUS will know what to say and DO. This is prophetic scripture and clearly indicates God is ONE BEING. God is speaking in the singular and says .. "I." He does not say "WE," but he says .."I." which is individualistic and demonstrates his SUPREME and EXCLUSIVE PERSONALITY.
6 Then he said, "I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob." At this, Moses hid his face, because he was afraid to look at God.
Exodus 3-6
I am the LORD, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God. I will strengthen you, though you have not acknowledged me
Isaiah 45:5
Here now, O Israel, the decrees and laws I am about to teach you. Follow them so that you may live and may go in and take possession of the land that the LORD, the God of your fathers, is giving you.
Deuteronomy 4:1
So we see that there is one God and he says .."I am the LORD GOD, and there is NO OTHER." How can we reconcile this with 3 gods in one being? That eliminates the purpose of there being ONE GOD. Or to say 3 BEINGS in ONE God would make no sense as well, because God claims he is ONE. He says .. "I," and this does not denote triunity, but singularity! If we obey the rules of language, the word "I," is denoting one individual. For example, When "I," give my opinion on something, that clearly means that I, Dave, one individual, is giving an opinion and I am not speaking for any other beings other then myself. I am not speaking for people, but I speaking my opinion towards people. In the Old Testament, God is a singular pronoun and the word "God," does not denote any type of plurality. The hebrew language confirms this.
I'll close this post off by presenting the true meaning of Good, and that is God. Jesus rejects the notion that he is GOOD and states that only GOD ALONE IS GOOD. Thus, this clearly shows Jesus is NOT GOD nor does he claim to be GOOD.
17As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
18"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone.
Mark 10:17-18
I hope you found this post informative and interesting, and feel free to leave any feedback. I will definitely add more to this topic in the coming future.
Monday, June 11, 2007
The "what is"
I'm starting to believe that people, both friends and enemies are put here to let us down. I believe that most of us are under the impression that they will always come through for us, and that they will always keep us happy. But I think we depend on people entirely too much for a form of happiness, whether it is a lover, or an acquaintence, or general friends or even enemies, it seems like we have to have them to get by.
But this kind of happiness which is dependent upon other human beings is always
temporary and with humans so susceptible to error, we shouldn't put all of our eggs
in one basket. People have their family, friends, work acqauintences, etc and they will never be happy simply because they haven't come to terms with the "what is."
There is a certain kind of happiness which does not depend on the past actions of our friends, nor the future expectations of our friends or anyone. This happiness is correspondent with the ever changing moment of the present time. Every new second and every new minute is where the true happiness comes from, and it starts with the inner self. The past can not be brought back and the future is only what we make it to be, but there shouldn't be expectations and when we expect people to act or be a certain way, we forget the truth. The truth of WHAT IS, the current situation,
which will evolve or decease, but never will it go back.
The principal of "what is," is a great way to see life truly as it is. The concept of time becomes relative because there is always some sort of movement or progression and all of this reality is happening at once. It is together in a sense, but in another sense reality is broken down and compartmentalized into time frames, the future and the past. But why even do this? Isn't this antagonistic and doesn't it
cause conflict? Doesn't it cause dillusional ideas and expectations of what something or someone should or shouldn't be? When we set rules and regulations and systems, it seems like we set ourselves up for more dissapointments. Instead of appreciating life for what it truly is, the simple beauty of nature and its eternal order, then what else really matters in the long run?
Does it matter if you become a doctor, lawyer, actor, etc? Why? You are naked at the end of the day like every other human being and you can not in reality become anything else other then human. These labels and these expectations people have are so silly and they try to fit them into a time frame. We all make so many plans and we become let down later on in life when they don't work out, but they are so trivial in the first place. For if we truly look at the what is, the nature of reality, what is required and what isn't, then we see things in a brighter light.
The simple reality is that we all need the sun to rise, for the seasons to change, to eat, to sleep, to reproduce. But all of our hopes and dreams of love, of our careers, they fade away like everyone elses. They all come to an end one way or the other and then what? You cant take these trivial matters to the grave. The simple
reality of the what is continues to go on and life goes on. Life in itself, the act of being alive and observing life is beauty in itself, and nothing else is really required to make me happy.
But this kind of happiness which is dependent upon other human beings is always
temporary and with humans so susceptible to error, we shouldn't put all of our eggs
in one basket. People have their family, friends, work acqauintences, etc and they will never be happy simply because they haven't come to terms with the "what is."
There is a certain kind of happiness which does not depend on the past actions of our friends, nor the future expectations of our friends or anyone. This happiness is correspondent with the ever changing moment of the present time. Every new second and every new minute is where the true happiness comes from, and it starts with the inner self. The past can not be brought back and the future is only what we make it to be, but there shouldn't be expectations and when we expect people to act or be a certain way, we forget the truth. The truth of WHAT IS, the current situation,
which will evolve or decease, but never will it go back.
The principal of "what is," is a great way to see life truly as it is. The concept of time becomes relative because there is always some sort of movement or progression and all of this reality is happening at once. It is together in a sense, but in another sense reality is broken down and compartmentalized into time frames, the future and the past. But why even do this? Isn't this antagonistic and doesn't it
cause conflict? Doesn't it cause dillusional ideas and expectations of what something or someone should or shouldn't be? When we set rules and regulations and systems, it seems like we set ourselves up for more dissapointments. Instead of appreciating life for what it truly is, the simple beauty of nature and its eternal order, then what else really matters in the long run?
Does it matter if you become a doctor, lawyer, actor, etc? Why? You are naked at the end of the day like every other human being and you can not in reality become anything else other then human. These labels and these expectations people have are so silly and they try to fit them into a time frame. We all make so many plans and we become let down later on in life when they don't work out, but they are so trivial in the first place. For if we truly look at the what is, the nature of reality, what is required and what isn't, then we see things in a brighter light.
The simple reality is that we all need the sun to rise, for the seasons to change, to eat, to sleep, to reproduce. But all of our hopes and dreams of love, of our careers, they fade away like everyone elses. They all come to an end one way or the other and then what? You cant take these trivial matters to the grave. The simple
reality of the what is continues to go on and life goes on. Life in itself, the act of being alive and observing life is beauty in itself, and nothing else is really required to make me happy.
Friday, June 8, 2007
The Paris Hilton Ordeal - Blown out of proportion?
We all know who she is and one way or the other. We get our shits and giggles from the entertainment she provides. (In one way or the other) The famous hilton is an icon in public life, whether you like her or not, and there are people who are furious because she was let out of jail.
A lot of celebrities like to talk smack about her because she inherited a bunch of money. Many Americans make jokes about her, ussually about her looks or about her actions. I suppose this is because most Americans have nothing better to do, so they sit around and criticize people. Most Americans aren't interested in expressing ideas and solutions, but would rather vent about paris hilton to relieve the starving boredom in their own miserable life.
So Paris got off early? So what? She barely did anything. The law is ridiculous as it is. Sure there is other people who are in jail and can't do anything about it, but why should anyone be mad at paris Hilton? She is a public icon and those were the cards she was dealt. This world wasn't made for everyone to get an equal chance, and people can't accept that for some reason. No matter how much we try, sometimes people are dealt better cards then others.
There is a LOT of celebrities who are snobby assholes out there, and they all talk about Paris Hilton, but they are no better.
Should Paris Hilton, or ANYONE be imprisoned for a silly charge like this?? No. Just because she is favoured doesn't mean that jail is the answer in the first place.
It doesn't bug me one bit that she got out, and if they want to put her back in, then so be it. But it doesn't affect me either way because I am not in jail.
A lot of celebrities like to talk smack about her because she inherited a bunch of money. Many Americans make jokes about her, ussually about her looks or about her actions. I suppose this is because most Americans have nothing better to do, so they sit around and criticize people. Most Americans aren't interested in expressing ideas and solutions, but would rather vent about paris hilton to relieve the starving boredom in their own miserable life.
So Paris got off early? So what? She barely did anything. The law is ridiculous as it is. Sure there is other people who are in jail and can't do anything about it, but why should anyone be mad at paris Hilton? She is a public icon and those were the cards she was dealt. This world wasn't made for everyone to get an equal chance, and people can't accept that for some reason. No matter how much we try, sometimes people are dealt better cards then others.
There is a LOT of celebrities who are snobby assholes out there, and they all talk about Paris Hilton, but they are no better.
Should Paris Hilton, or ANYONE be imprisoned for a silly charge like this?? No. Just because she is favoured doesn't mean that jail is the answer in the first place.
It doesn't bug me one bit that she got out, and if they want to put her back in, then so be it. But it doesn't affect me either way because I am not in jail.
Thursday, June 7, 2007
Bin Laden denied involvement of 9/11. Confession video must have been fake.
Source: Ummat, Urdu-language daily newspaper based in Karachi, Pakistan -
Friday, 28 September 2001 - pages 1, 7.
Source: BBC Monitoring Service.
Read the Entire Article right here
"I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle."
-Osama Bin Laden
Sept, 28th, 2001
THE FAKE CONFESSION VIDEO PROVEN
The video below is a confirmation of Bin-Laden's statement on sept, 28th, 2001, in which he condems the attack!! The video below is an excerpt from the popular documentary: loose change.
Tell me people, why would Osama Bin Laden deny the attacks to a major news source like the BBC, and then supposedly confess in some fuzzy recorded video?? Does that REALLY make sense? Furthermore, we all know the Bin-Ladens have a good relationship with the CIA and we all know they are filthy rich with plenty of investments pending. So Bin-Laden clearly had nothing to do with this.
Your thoughts?
Friday, 28 September 2001 - pages 1, 7.
Source: BBC Monitoring Service.
Read the Entire Article right here
"I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle."
-Osama Bin Laden
Sept, 28th, 2001
THE FAKE CONFESSION VIDEO PROVEN
The video below is a confirmation of Bin-Laden's statement on sept, 28th, 2001, in which he condems the attack!! The video below is an excerpt from the popular documentary: loose change.
Tell me people, why would Osama Bin Laden deny the attacks to a major news source like the BBC, and then supposedly confess in some fuzzy recorded video?? Does that REALLY make sense? Furthermore, we all know the Bin-Ladens have a good relationship with the CIA and we all know they are filthy rich with plenty of investments pending. So Bin-Laden clearly had nothing to do with this.
Your thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
