What is wrong with being a Conspiracy Theorist?

Balerion,

What do you mean by ''inherently good''?
Where did you get you information about God from?

Are you saying ''evil' exists regardless of human beings?

What are you talking about?

Can you or can you not define ''evil''.
Also please explain what you mean by ''inherantly good'' regarding God.

jan.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Balerion,

You said ''they say God is good''. A title cannot speak.
Who are ''they'' and where can I see this for myself?

You made a claim and I'm calling you on it.

You've given your opinion based on what your idea of karma. To address anything you've said properly, requires us to delve into the subject matter,
which would be a pointless exercise with you.

A material thing.


jan.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

wynn,

Thanks for the opinion.

That's nice to know, but what's your point?

So how does this contradict my description?

jan.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I suggest you re-read the question again, stick to the words I use, try your best not to add your own interpretation,
and above all, note who the question is aimed at.

If after that you still feel this response is relevant, then just answer the questions I posed and we'll take it from there.

jan.

 

Quantum Quack,

I don't think I've ever read anything you've written that is (purposely) offensive, the post in question although seemingly offensive, lacked that
true offensiveness.


But the question still remains. Why did you treat the Christian like that?
Why do you say the Bible is obselete, when it clearly isn't? At least, not if you get the overall point of it.

There is a notion that the powers that be want to irradicate religion, starting with Christianity.
There is a notion that Christians are morons who do not accept science, so can be ridiculed with intellectual impunity.
There is a notion that the Bible is anything but the word of God.

Your post ticked all three boxes, yet you yourself do not appear to reprisent any of the sub-titles.

My point is (keeping in line with thread), ''mind-control'' may have been a factor reared, kicking in as your guard was down.
Maybe that's how it works. Just a thought.

''Crcifixion'' was the punishment for high-treason at that time and place. Had the same scenario happened today, the punishment would be imprisonment.
Jesus broke that law, according to the government of the day, albeit a groos misunderstanding. He knew exactly what he was getting into, and successfully made his point.

Whether the body perishes through old age, disease, destruction of the mind, natural disaster, or through the agency of another being, it doesn't matter because that is the law of nature.
The point is the ''spiritual'' aspect of the living entity cannot be destroyed.
Jesus exemplified this giving hope to those who may have lost their way.
He himself, while experiencing the real bodily pain and suffering of crucifixion, was not affected (in reality) by it.
To understand the difference between ''matter'' and ''spirit'' IS the begining point of become spiritually aware. Hence the point of his life was
to remind those individuals that they are not the (material) body, but are part and parcel of his Father, God (spirit).
And as such there is nothing to fear once you are situated in that (actual) consciousness.

Can you highlight some of those things?

Obviously, God isn't insane, because God is the standard of perfection, and insanity is less than perfect (from our perspective).
The real question is ''What is God?''.

It's already here, but we have to see it, by relating it to our own experience.
The trials, tribulations, and experiences of Jesus, are no different to our own, they're just played out differently.

jan.

 

Utter garbage, yet again.

 

From the various holy texts, as well as from others' interpretations of them.

Well, cruelty and indifference do, yes. I believe Aqueous Id put it best when he said "change 'evil' to 'pathology' and problem solved."

You just defined evil as an "absence of good." For the purposes of this discussion, that will do fine. It doesn't actually matter how you define it, the thrust of the question remains the same: How do you reconcile a good God with the creation of the parameters that allow for such an thing, whether that thing be evil as a property in and of itself or just a term to describe an absence or corruption of good?

From Dictionary.com:

 

Psychoneuroimmunology is one of those fields of science that is very prone to woo-woos like you getting a hold of it and twisting it to fit their own means. The idea that "all illness" is related to the mind is way beyond what the field could possibly say. And your reduction of "cancer=long-term build up of ego frustration" is incorrect as well, as it implies that thought regulates the immune system, which it does not. The matter is not as simple--nor related at all to your ego--as you seem to think.

But it isn't surprising that you've gotten this wrong. I've yet to see you represent a single concept correctly on this forum in your first attempt at it, and some (such as what actually constitutes a conspiracy or conspiracy theorist) you still don't get on your third and forth effort.

No doubt another QQ apology for talking out of school is on the way. Is it that you have no shame? I couldn't fathom repeating the same careless mistakes over and over again.

 

What are you afraid of Balerion, just answer the question.

jan.

 

Balerion,

A ''interpretation can mean anybody's including your own, I won't go into that yet.
But precisely which text says that God is good? I would like to view them myself.

Let's stick to the adjective of ''evil''. Does ''evil'' exist apart from humans?
Remember that is ''the problem''.

Actually it does matter how we define it because if we know what it is, we can decide whether it is a problem or not.

Firstly I don't know what you mean by ''a good God''. It's not a terminology that I am aware of.

Now can you use that description to answer the actual question?

jan.

 

@Jan, I guess one could say I am caught in a situation where by I respect the need for others to believe as they see fit. This stems from the basic principle of what I believe is the "most immoral act" one can commit against another.

That is in a way the causation of all evil if you wish to extend it that far IMO.

Simply put that morality is thus:

"The most immoral act that any one can commit against another is to try and force their own morality upon them."

When someone attempts to force a belief or morality upon someone else they are in effect attempting to control the freewill and therefore freedom of belief and moral choices of that person. This leads to demonstrably huge intolerance and anger accordingly. The current display of Moslem hostility towards all things USA, world wide due to an incredibly stupid and unwise act of film making is a classic example of what I mean.

No to your post, there are many things in it that I believe are fundamentally incorrect, however this is not for me to judge against you nor any one else.

Example you have claimed that crucifixion was for only high crimes yet Jesus had a common thief next to him on another cross.

You say he was trialed by the judiciary of the times yet Pontius Pilate [no jury system = no justice] washed his hands and handed him over to a lynching mob.
You say that he was recognised by his people yet Disciple Peter declares not once by three times that he knows nothing about Jesus Christ.

For me there are way too many issues with your post so I wish not to dissect it word for word but more attend to the general thrust and your most ardent question:

This is a fair and serious question... Why did I purposefully attempt to burst the evangelists bubble of contentment....hmmmmm...

Firstly, I have only used this approach twice and on both occasions felt saddened by my actions asking myself why I did such a thing. [ their ignorance of me is not their fault ]
Secondly, I never approach an evangelist, they always attempt to entrap a person into conversing with them by extending a false handshake that reeks of duplicity.
I do not get approached by evangelists any more either I might add, they seem to sense futility I guess.
I do not like being subjected to entrapment nor do I shake hands with someone so falsely demanding that I presume their friendship whilst they are seeking to entrap rather than engage honestly.

The fact remains that I am caught believing in a God [universe] that I happen to believe is sane and rational as the universe appears to be regardless of how insane, irrational and abusive others may percieve their version of God to be. I look around me and I see order, logic, reason and intuitive process. It is only when looking at mankind that I see irrationality, il-logicality, counter intuitiveness and chaos. I understand this to be the nature of both the blessing and curse of freewill as mankind evolves towards a better way of living and getting along with each other.

I can neither agree nor participate in any religion whether that be Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Brahma-ism, or various forms of organised pseudo paganism, such as Freemasonry, Rosicrucian, Prior Sion and so on.., . I can only hold to my own personal relationship with the universe [ God ] and all that the Universe [ God] has provided, is providing and will go on providing. I accept the generosity of the universe [ God ] with gratitude.
In some ways I could align with Sufism, but in doing so I must divest the ideology behind such approaches and strike out alone.

So again I wish not to offend any one for their particular beliefs as it is their right as free people to believe as they see fit. However if they wish to enforce their beliefs upon me then I shall defend my freedom to the death if necessary, to believe as I see fit as I need to - such is the nature of Wallace's cry for freedom depicted in the movie "Brave Heart" so well.

[video=youtube;p6PkwyQ4JDA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6PkwyQ4JDA[/video]

I respect their position and can only ask, not demand, to be respected in turn for mine.

 

Do you have a problem with apology Balerion...
It is only a seven letter word yet you know it is so hard for some people to make use of...
When lying in your hospital palliative care unit bed in agony wishing that science had researched cancer better maybe then you might extend an apology, but then again maybe not....

 

Quantum Quack

Is that what the Christian in question did?

That's a massive accusation.

I don't mind if you do. If what you say has merit, I'll have no choice but to accept it, but if not, I'll let you know.
That's why we're here. Is in not?

We all know it was a kangaroo court, and that he was basically stiched up. So he wasn't a criminal at all, but for some reason he had to be irradicated.
That seems to be the yardstick. You start to enlighten folk, then you die.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Nothing has really changed.

But his death was particularly brutal, and horrible, and the reason given was ''high treason''.

A bit like a mayor handing over a black man to the KKK because he slept with a white women.

Only because he was frightened.

Ok.

Hurry up! I'm holding my breath.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You still haven't explained why you think their version of God is insane.
Maybe you should disect my post, because as it stands at the moment, my explanation dowses the fire of your original reason, namely the the murder of Jesus.

If you're looking around and observe illogicality, counter intuitiveness, and chaos, and you don't believe in a transcendant Supreme Being, but believe the universe to be God, then those qualities are also of your version of God. So why do you not accept them as part and parcel of the whole?

By your own admission, you don't accept the universe because it has elements in it that you don't like.
Your position seems to be one of an atheist who wants the comfort of believing in God, without actually believing in God.

Hmmm! An interesting approach, filled with what I see as holes, but I won't go there unless you want to take it further.

If you do, I'll try and incorporate how conspiracies tie in to your position. It'll be fun.

It's not about that. Their intention is to save you soul, which is noble thing.

jan.

 

Of course it would be to any one who is motivated towards seeking out hypocracy and paradox in anothers words as the only vehicle with which to improve their own position.
I mean this with no disrespect as just about all posters to these fora are prioritised that way.. to look for mistake, contradiction and paradoxical posting behaviour.

It is the nature of the beast so to speak and I can accept and respect that even if it appears to falsely represent both the "claimant" and the "defendant".

The biggest crime that Jesus committed from a universal perspective was that he attempted to remove responsibility for acts of "sin" and therefore remove the need for a
"soul" to suffer it's own eternal evolution towards maturity. To inspire people to believe that through worshiping Jesus instead of God directly, ones sins will be forgiven. Therefore "robbing " individual souls of their need to suffer according to their actions. He [ the subsequent ideology ] attempted to provide an escape from the consequences of sin. Of course it is up to mankind to determine what is and what is not a sin beyond the ten commmandments so Christ has disempowered people of the power to seek individual redemption and suffer accordingly, and now the power belongs to a church in the providing a monopoly on such.

From a universal perspective it is little wonder he paid such a high price for the sin of monopolising Gods forgiveness.
So whilst the evangelists misguided intention is to "save my soul" all I can say is that no one can save my soul other than my self. It is my responsibility to seek redemption through my own hard work and sacrifice [ crucifixion ] and not "passing the buck" of regret and remorse onto the shoulders of someone else.
The whole story of the Christain Church can be put down, if one chooses to be cynical, to clever power marketing. Offer what people are desparately seeking [ redemption with out work ] therefore disempowering the people and empowering the church.
However I wish not to be so cynical as to over look the amazing beauty of some with in that system or ideology. Human beings are what they are....

There is a fundamental of the human existential psychology and existance involved in these NWO Conspiracy theories. All of which pertain to the nature of freewill. All pertain to the fear of loosing that freedom - entrapment. All relate directly to someone wishing to overly influence their decisions to the point where they fear thay will loose control of their own destinies. All fear loosing control of their own minds - mind control conspiracies. Given what I know of the organisation that is constantly being subjected to the focus of these theories this is not surprising.

I have had to assist in three persons extraction from this organisation's "mind control regime" and it is truly tragic to see the incredible damage done to their inner psychology and emotional health. If you think people recovering from typical "cult" type emmeshments are pretty bad then the aformentioned extractions would blow you away. "Obey or die" is the command line they use...

So I see value in the psychotic ramblings of persons who feel the influence of this particular organistion, as psychosis and serious mental health/behavioural issues are an outocome of those who resist their infleunce.

Of all human needs there is only one primary need that transcends all others. It is the only need that a human being will willingly sacrifice his life for whether that be by suicide or war and that is freedom to choose as they need to choose. Free will. The freedom to determine their own individual destiny. "Self determination - freewill" All wars are fought, all suicides are attempted, all conflict engaged.. the same basic need applies - Freewill.

The immorality of someone forcing their morality upon someones else stands as the most immoral act one can commit against another due to the fact that the quest for freedom is so innate and signficiant in a person life.
There can be no true peace with out freedom and ultimately there can be no true freedom with out peace. Thus a conspiracy theorist is a person who has felt an infuence he can not properly understand and spend his life attempting to do so as his freewill is being compromised and he needs to know how and why and attempt to work out how to stop it. It is utterly impossible not to as existential freewill is a fundamental of human existance.

 

The bible, for one. Not only does it say God himself is good ("Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone." --Mark 10:17-18) but also says that everthing God created is good ("For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving," --Timothy 4:4). Have at it.

I've already given you the answer. Whether or not you accept it is up to you, but I'm not playing your semantic games.

No, you're wrong, and for exactly the reasons I just stated. It does not matter whether you define evil as an absence of good or an entity unto itself, God is the one who allegedly created the conditions to allow for such a thing.

Then why are you involved in this discussion? It's in the bible. If you don't know that, then you probably shouldn't be here.

What question?

 

Should I take that as an apology, QQ?

 

Balerion,

The bible, for one. Not only does it say God himself is good ("Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone." --Mark 10:17-18) but also says that everthing God created is good ("For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving," --Timothy 4:4). Have at it.


So if everything God ''created'' is good, then He didn't create evil, therefore evil is not a thing that is created, but a human condition.
So where's the problem?

jan.

 

Isn't God responsible for the universe and everything in it? Perhaps the Bible isn't reporting the truth accurately.

 

He creates, maintains, and anihilates.

jan.

 

"And God said unto himself when appraising his handiwork after those seven days, "Well, you know.... 'tis better that nothing!"


So it must all be good....