Sugar Defender Reviews – (Scam Or...
How it Works0 min ago
Agree to disagree?
75 Answers
You can criticize me all you want for this post, I'm not really bothered and I am not suggesting any one in particular this is general but I would like to say that these discussions on this site are interesting, demanding and very enlightening. Although alot of them are religious based and I get the impression that many users are very knowledgeable in religion, it does not mean that other opinions can be treated disrepectfully. I appreciate that some opinions may frustrate the knowledgeable user by their lack of education in that area. I, myself will say that my opinions in this area may be naive, pathetic, unsophisticated and poor but nevertheless I have an opinion and I have every right as any other user to voice my opinion.
I would not participate in this site if I was not open to being educated in this area.This in itself should suggest a positive step for those who want to influence others by their knowledge. As adults we should appreciate the different lifesyles and backgrounds that we all come from and we should respect different views within reason, without being insulting. Instead a response post should be educational and is it too much to ask that it be understanding? Instead of critical or scarcastic? I did actually end up watching a 2 hour doc 'The BIble Unearthed' today which I would never have done. Finally I ask again that whatever someone's belief, however pathetic and naive it comes across, it is nevertheless someone's held belief and no-one appreciates or deserves disrespect of that. If it's not agreeable that's fine but at least be reasonable in expressing your disagreement of it.
I would not participate in this site if I was not open to being educated in this area.This in itself should suggest a positive step for those who want to influence others by their knowledge. As adults we should appreciate the different lifesyles and backgrounds that we all come from and we should respect different views within reason, without being insulting. Instead a response post should be educational and is it too much to ask that it be understanding? Instead of critical or scarcastic? I did actually end up watching a 2 hour doc 'The BIble Unearthed' today which I would never have done. Finally I ask again that whatever someone's belief, however pathetic and naive it comes across, it is nevertheless someone's held belief and no-one appreciates or deserves disrespect of that. If it's not agreeable that's fine but at least be reasonable in expressing your disagreement of it.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Seadragon. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Few points then going to sleep. Keyplus, I can't offer you my sympathy as I don't have any feelings towards parental loss and am generally gutted when I hear of another's parent passing away. But I am sorry for you that it was your mother.
My belief, which happens to be so simple that I can't understand why it is so difficult to grasp is that Souls (form of universal energy) exist to guide us, if we choose to 'see' e.g 'when one door closes the other opens' and God (a presence of universal energy) is just there. Maybe abit of the subconscious brainwashing from general life and media and just 'labelling' the term. And that's it. Those influences to name afew are Philosophical stuff I read and films that I have seen e.g 'A wonderful life' and 'Ghost'.
It's simple, it's easy and it works for me. Thanks Ankou for your blessing and I do return the same to you and all others. I'm unsure about the Utopia part though as I like differences, as Keyplus says they 'make the world go round'. I think Respect needs to be learnt though. That's whats missing and why there are so many problems. All down to lack of Respect. Ankou, a contradiction here though since I'm an argumentative person - I really don't need your permission to believe what I want. ('Whatever you wish to believe...is fine by me.') I'm just picking you up on that because it's funny!
My belief, which happens to be so simple that I can't understand why it is so difficult to grasp is that Souls (form of universal energy) exist to guide us, if we choose to 'see' e.g 'when one door closes the other opens' and God (a presence of universal energy) is just there. Maybe abit of the subconscious brainwashing from general life and media and just 'labelling' the term. And that's it. Those influences to name afew are Philosophical stuff I read and films that I have seen e.g 'A wonderful life' and 'Ghost'.
It's simple, it's easy and it works for me. Thanks Ankou for your blessing and I do return the same to you and all others. I'm unsure about the Utopia part though as I like differences, as Keyplus says they 'make the world go round'. I think Respect needs to be learnt though. That's whats missing and why there are so many problems. All down to lack of Respect. Ankou, a contradiction here though since I'm an argumentative person - I really don't need your permission to believe what I want. ('Whatever you wish to believe...is fine by me.') I'm just picking you up on that because it's funny!
Beso and to you Naomi, I understand that religion means a great deal to you. And people like me, of which there are many don't have much to do with religion at all which I sense would really frustrate you. I don't disrepect religion but I see a different side. You spoke of the elite - an hierarchial system yet all I would see is the one Priest in the Church who generally speaks good things and thats it. Then I would walk away and carry on with life. All the massacres, bloody religious history, Joshua even (unheard of until I saw the documentary) and Tehri faith - I don't even know what that is? That - I just cannot relate to it whatsoever. It is simply the humane qualities in Man that I recognise. We must be from opposite World's and you must be so cheesed off with me.
I know wars are fought in the name of Religion, that is fundamentalist blind-sighted power hungry people who use Religion for their own means. That is, to me, just the 'bad/evil' side of human beings at work. Maybe textual writing states some nasty stuff, but a large proportion of those believers don't believe in that aspect and assign it to history. As Everton says, we live in a multicultural society and in relation to historical events and atrocities, we are I think still more tolerant now then ever of religion - is that not a good thing?
Religion has always been criticitized and will continue to be so but honestly I don't want to see a developed religious study in schools. I'm fine with the general overview of the main religions being taught as an introduction and not a commentary on. And finally, I would dread an atheist world. The fear of dying is enough to make me believe in Intellectual aliens if not a God.
I know wars are fought in the name of Religion, that is fundamentalist blind-sighted power hungry people who use Religion for their own means. That is, to me, just the 'bad/evil' side of human beings at work. Maybe textual writing states some nasty stuff, but a large proportion of those believers don't believe in that aspect and assign it to history. As Everton says, we live in a multicultural society and in relation to historical events and atrocities, we are I think still more tolerant now then ever of religion - is that not a good thing?
Religion has always been criticitized and will continue to be so but honestly I don't want to see a developed religious study in schools. I'm fine with the general overview of the main religions being taught as an introduction and not a commentary on. And finally, I would dread an atheist world. The fear of dying is enough to make me believe in Intellectual aliens if not a God.
Seadragon, Again I can't speak for Beso, but the fact that you don't have much to do with religion doesn't frustrate me, and I'm definitely not cheesed off with you. I find it encouraging when people are interested enough to think about it and actually debate the subject, and I wish more would take the trouble to do it because that might just lead to a happier world.
I understand your sentiments concerning your idea of God - I've said similar things here myself. I'm not anti-spirituality - in fact I'm quite a spiritual person. I don't know if there is a God, but if there is it's my firm belief that it isn't the God of the Bible and the Koran. He is quite simply not the loving entity his followers claim him to be. He is a psychopathic interloper - and anyone who takes the time to study his history honestly will very soon come to realise that. You say a large proportion of believers don't believe in the nasty aspect of God, but nevertheless he is the basis of their faith, he is the one in whose name barbaric acts of terrorism are committed, he is the one whom people, from childhood, are taught to fear, and for those reasons alone I don't believe it is a good thing that any organised religion is tolerated because it impacts negatively upon the whole world, and will probably eventually destroy us all. What I am trying to get across to you is that you, on behalf of the followers of these religions, champion their belief in this God without, by your own admission, really knowing what it is you are championing.
If you'd like something to read, may I suggest for starters The End of Faith, by Sam Harris.
I understand your sentiments concerning your idea of God - I've said similar things here myself. I'm not anti-spirituality - in fact I'm quite a spiritual person. I don't know if there is a God, but if there is it's my firm belief that it isn't the God of the Bible and the Koran. He is quite simply not the loving entity his followers claim him to be. He is a psychopathic interloper - and anyone who takes the time to study his history honestly will very soon come to realise that. You say a large proportion of believers don't believe in the nasty aspect of God, but nevertheless he is the basis of their faith, he is the one in whose name barbaric acts of terrorism are committed, he is the one whom people, from childhood, are taught to fear, and for those reasons alone I don't believe it is a good thing that any organised religion is tolerated because it impacts negatively upon the whole world, and will probably eventually destroy us all. What I am trying to get across to you is that you, on behalf of the followers of these religions, champion their belief in this God without, by your own admission, really knowing what it is you are championing.
If you'd like something to read, may I suggest for starters The End of Faith, by Sam Harris.
"He is a psychopathic interloper - and anyone who takes the time to study his history honestly will very soon come to realise that."
you mean man made written history ? i though most of that confirmed their god to be a raging lunatic with a penchant for smiting. if you got on his wrong side of course.
you mean man made written history ? i though most of that confirmed their god to be a raging lunatic with a penchant for smiting. if you got on his wrong side of course.
Most certainly a phychotic, Ankou.
The history as is written in the Bible. The basis of the Bible's authority is that everything written in it is correct. Biblical paleontologists go to great lengths to prove the Bible is an accurate record of history. Some have committed fraud in the endeavour.
Essentially it says the Hebrews were treated badly in Egypt. God loved the Hebrews because they were the chosen tribe and punished the Egyptians by killing their first born sons. God then helped them run away to another region where He helped them massacre all the people who lived there. These more than 32 tribes who were "put to the sword, every man, woman and child" had never interacted with the Hebrews but happend to live in a place where they thought they had run far enough. Why God didn't just kill all the Egyptians and give that land to the Hebrews is never explained.
Quite simply once reaching the Promised Land, God told the Hewbrews that all these civilisations were evil places where all the women were prostitutes. God ordered them to kill everyone.
After the massaces which eventulally were tooo numerous in individualy report the Hebrews decided to enslave the remaining tribes after some tricked them into thinking they didn't live in the area and signed a peace treaty. They we so angry at the treachery that saved them from being slaughtered.
They then worshipped the box of stolen wealth they pilliaged as an offering to God for the favours He had granted in helping the Israelites massacre hundreds of thousands as they claimed their Promised Land.
Now tell me that isn't psychotic and totally fcuked up.
The history as is written in the Bible. The basis of the Bible's authority is that everything written in it is correct. Biblical paleontologists go to great lengths to prove the Bible is an accurate record of history. Some have committed fraud in the endeavour.
Essentially it says the Hebrews were treated badly in Egypt. God loved the Hebrews because they were the chosen tribe and punished the Egyptians by killing their first born sons. God then helped them run away to another region where He helped them massacre all the people who lived there. These more than 32 tribes who were "put to the sword, every man, woman and child" had never interacted with the Hebrews but happend to live in a place where they thought they had run far enough. Why God didn't just kill all the Egyptians and give that land to the Hebrews is never explained.
Quite simply once reaching the Promised Land, God told the Hewbrews that all these civilisations were evil places where all the women were prostitutes. God ordered them to kill everyone.
After the massaces which eventulally were tooo numerous in individualy report the Hebrews decided to enslave the remaining tribes after some tricked them into thinking they didn't live in the area and signed a peace treaty. They we so angry at the treachery that saved them from being slaughtered.
They then worshipped the box of stolen wealth they pilliaged as an offering to God for the favours He had granted in helping the Israelites massacre hundreds of thousands as they claimed their Promised Land.
Now tell me that isn't psychotic and totally fcuked up.
Part 1
I agree with the premise of your question/statement, but I suspect the problem is not where in the spectrum of religious opinion people stand but what their attitude is to those who disagree with them. The very same type of reactions arise in the mids of intolerant people whether the subject is race, religion, politics,sports team allegiances, pet ownership or whatever. If we need proof that the human race is still quite primitive, then just observe how likely intolerant people are to think in terms of exterminating (physically as well as ideologically) any and all evidence of "them" disagreeing - they instantly becoming an enemy. People who like simplistic answers also favour simplistic "solutions" - that way there is far less effort required in reaching a decision. I know people who fastidiously observe their religion as taught to them, yet they are very tolerant of my (calmly put) explanation why I am not only disinterested in following their example but actually think they are wasting their intellectual capital and their time. Perhaps the fact that we both accept that the other cannot prove his/her point helps - an acceptance that ours is simply an opinion until some unequivocal proof presents itself. I also know people who have reacted with great anger when not only have I rejected the suggestion they know some absolute truth and that its proof lies in the fact that lots of people believe that self same truth, but I have demonstrated to them that they misquote the very scripture that the proof is supposed to come from. I believe I was/am detested for this, but I am merely saddened by the immaturity that is revealed by the anger. In fact, a lot of intolerance has at its roots simple insecurity and insecurity thrives in any environment where knowledge is in very short supply.
I agree with the premise of your question/statement, but I suspect the problem is not where in the spectrum of religious opinion people stand but what their attitude is to those who disagree with them. The very same type of reactions arise in the mids of intolerant people whether the subject is race, religion, politics,sports team allegiances, pet ownership or whatever. If we need proof that the human race is still quite primitive, then just observe how likely intolerant people are to think in terms of exterminating (physically as well as ideologically) any and all evidence of "them" disagreeing - they instantly becoming an enemy. People who like simplistic answers also favour simplistic "solutions" - that way there is far less effort required in reaching a decision. I know people who fastidiously observe their religion as taught to them, yet they are very tolerant of my (calmly put) explanation why I am not only disinterested in following their example but actually think they are wasting their intellectual capital and their time. Perhaps the fact that we both accept that the other cannot prove his/her point helps - an acceptance that ours is simply an opinion until some unequivocal proof presents itself. I also know people who have reacted with great anger when not only have I rejected the suggestion they know some absolute truth and that its proof lies in the fact that lots of people believe that self same truth, but I have demonstrated to them that they misquote the very scripture that the proof is supposed to come from. I believe I was/am detested for this, but I am merely saddened by the immaturity that is revealed by the anger. In fact, a lot of intolerance has at its roots simple insecurity and insecurity thrives in any environment where knowledge is in very short supply.
well yes. the 'history' of god as you call it is made up by man.
so his true personality is one of conjecture, based on this information, which itself is conjecture.
some people believe the good bits and disregard the bad bits. it doesn't mean they don;t know al about the smiting and plaguing though. they are just being choosey as to what suits their ideology or lifestyle.
like my jedward example. people know they are bad. really bad. but it suits people to see something good in what they are doing - even if they are being a bit anticowell. a guilty pleasure if you like. obviously when simon fuller gets them on his books and we are subjected to them presenting every tv show going ever, then people might start to have doubts about their original beliefs. come the revolution.
so his true personality is one of conjecture, based on this information, which itself is conjecture.
some people believe the good bits and disregard the bad bits. it doesn't mean they don;t know al about the smiting and plaguing though. they are just being choosey as to what suits their ideology or lifestyle.
like my jedward example. people know they are bad. really bad. but it suits people to see something good in what they are doing - even if they are being a bit anticowell. a guilty pleasure if you like. obviously when simon fuller gets them on his books and we are subjected to them presenting every tv show going ever, then people might start to have doubts about their original beliefs. come the revolution.
Pointless quoting Bible & Koran verse from primitive eras when arabs (source of info for both books) moved with tents & camels from one oasis t'other.
It's how that past is worn today with, ie Jihad! That's a call of 'death to infidels' in this 21st century. Should we respect this 'for an alternative opinion' - we'd be foolish not to protect ourselves against such warriors, an undercurrent order to most mosques. Until imams etc retract from Jihad we have be on the alert and deal with those perpetraters accordingly.
Please convince me otherwise and I'll feel safer respecting alternative doctrines.
It's how that past is worn today with, ie Jihad! That's a call of 'death to infidels' in this 21st century. Should we respect this 'for an alternative opinion' - we'd be foolish not to protect ourselves against such warriors, an undercurrent order to most mosques. Until imams etc retract from Jihad we have be on the alert and deal with those perpetraters accordingly.
Please convince me otherwise and I'll feel safer respecting alternative doctrines.
Part 2
Tolerance is part of (general) education and knowledge arises from the presence of objective education. Modern development in communications have had a profound effect in lots of ways, such as throwing light on what is happening elsewhere (man's inhumanity to man), how other people think and live (they are almost exactly like you or I), other ways of doing things work (we can learn from others), pressure for change can achieve it (fall of communism), etc., etc. Consider those who suffer from poor local education (a systemic fault), where the media also serve the people poorly (very narrow, dumbed down coverage of issues and events), and the people in power conspire to keep it that way - these people are very easy to manipulate: Feed them a biased and calculating diet of misinformation and you will get exactly the reaction you aim for because the people are not equipped to analyse and conclude for themselves. The size may vary from country to country, but significant groups of people of this type exist in most or every country. Intolerance is a powerful tool in the hands of anyone who aspires to leadership. Some say that its presence and use is very often demonstrated, not least in the USA where the last president (and several before him) was elected simply because he pandered to the intolerant. In that country we find the frequent resorting to homicidal violence quite shocking but in truth it is not entirely surprising - the historical background gives rise to it just as surely as Jihadist notions spring from another culture and part of the world.
Tolerance is part of (general) education and knowledge arises from the presence of objective education. Modern development in communications have had a profound effect in lots of ways, such as throwing light on what is happening elsewhere (man's inhumanity to man), how other people think and live (they are almost exactly like you or I), other ways of doing things work (we can learn from others), pressure for change can achieve it (fall of communism), etc., etc. Consider those who suffer from poor local education (a systemic fault), where the media also serve the people poorly (very narrow, dumbed down coverage of issues and events), and the people in power conspire to keep it that way - these people are very easy to manipulate: Feed them a biased and calculating diet of misinformation and you will get exactly the reaction you aim for because the people are not equipped to analyse and conclude for themselves. The size may vary from country to country, but significant groups of people of this type exist in most or every country. Intolerance is a powerful tool in the hands of anyone who aspires to leadership. Some say that its presence and use is very often demonstrated, not least in the USA where the last president (and several before him) was elected simply because he pandered to the intolerant. In that country we find the frequent resorting to homicidal violence quite shocking but in truth it is not entirely surprising - the historical background gives rise to it just as surely as Jihadist notions spring from another culture and part of the world.
Latest Posts
Crosswords1 min ago
News6 mins ago
Would You Transgress To Assist An...
Motoring15 mins ago
