Whose Side Is God On? And How Will the Conflict and Tribulation End?

[SarahM32]

If lasting peace could really be “won” by waging religious crusades, partisan political campaigns, or wars, then there would be peace in the world. But we do not have peace because lasting peace cannot be won. That's why it has been said that those who live by the sword shall perish by the sword. We reap what we have sown in the karmic consequences of our words and deeds.

Lasting peace can only be made by treating all others as we would want to be treated if we were them; by reconciling differences, making amends, and granting and providing all people with equal rights and equal opportunities. And, ultimately, lasting peace will be made by fair-minded peacemakers, armed only with the authority provided by the divine intervention of prophesied righteous judgment.

That is not to say that men have not had to fight back against tyrants, despots, aggressors, occupiers, and military industrial imperialists, nor is it to say that they were wrong to do so. However, we may now advance and progress beyond the need to do so, if we are courageous enough, and wise enough.

The world has been through many wars, especially during the last hundred years, and we are now at a stage where most people can that see the present wars are not merely about land, resources and property. They are also about opposing religious and political ideologies, and about grossly unfair income disparity. And these wars are preventable with proper understanding and reason.

Those with true wisdom have always said that a house divided against itself cannot stand, and the same is true for a neighborhood, city, state, nation, and world.

We are divided because people fight for power over each other. Most of them feel entitled to rule, whether it’s in the name of their religion or religious sect, or their nation or partisan political party, or their race or culture. They think theirs is superior and entitles them to rule. But, as long as they continue to do so we will not have equal rights, real liberty, true justice, or lasting peace in the world.

Only when we acknowledge that we are all created equal and endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable human rights, regardless of our religion, nationality, race, culture, or wealth, will we have real and lasting peace, freedom, and justice.

.

Continued at Whose Side Is God On?
.

[rug]

1. This assumes God is bound by sides.

Anthropomorphism makes poor theology.

[SarahM32]

4. The title simply refers to those who THINK God is on their side. The article is not anthropomorphic.

For example:

"God or Divinity is the same universally. Whether you call it Creator, or Brahman, Yahweh, Jehovah, Ahura Mazda, Absolute Tao, The Supreme Consciousness, The Great Spirit, Wakan-Tanka, or any other name, it is still the Holy One. It is still the Divine Light-Energy Source of our existence, the Essence of all life and form, from the smallest nano-particle to the atom to the galaxy to the Universe. It is Divinity Itself, and it literally vibrates with it.

Prophets and other servants of God called it different things, but it’s the same whatever you call it. And when you realize it you know it is pure divine love, pure ecstasy, pure knowingness, and pure and blissful peace that is beyond human comprehension or understanding — and while Man has tried to describe it, it cannot be described.
"

Other articles on that site remind us that God is NOT made in our image. We are made in God's "image" as "Children of Light." And, as even Moses wrote, "God is not a man, nor a son of man."

In other words, even though some OT writers gave the impression that God is a "He" and Jesus of Nazareth may have called God "Our Father," there is ample evidence even in Judeo-Christian canon that reveals that God is prior to form, without form, infinite, and omnipresent. The ancient root of Judaism, the Kabbalah and its offshoot Qabalah make that very clear.
.

[AlbertCat]

6. God or Divinity is the same universally.

Yeah.... made up.

[AlbertCat]

7. Anthropomorphism makes poor theology.

Of course the very notion of gods is anthropomorphizing nature.

All the theology in the world can't cover that up.

[rug]

8. It's the exact opposite.

I suppose that's why it's easier to mock cartoon notions of a god than to try to wrap your mind around something utterly different.

[AlbertCat]

9. I suppose that's why it's easier to mock cartoon notions of a god

What other notions of god are there?

Using theology to support theology are we?

Lame, as usual.

[rug]

10. If you have to ask you have not progressed beyond cartoons.

I had mixed feelings when my daughter stopped watching Nickelodeon. But it was time.

You may enjoy this site: http://www.cartoonnetwork.com/

[AlbertCat]

11. Was that supposed to be wit?

There are many cartoons that are more witty than anything you've ever posted.

"Bullwinkle" comes to mind. I'm sure "Dexter's Lab" would go over your pointed little head.

And you're still using theology to support theology.

Maybe you should stop reading Chick Tracts.

[rug]

12. Maybe it is you who should stop reading Chick comics and try Schleiermacher for starters.

It may provide some content to your posts.

[AlbertCat]

15. try Schleiermacher for starters.

Ooooooo.... name dropping.


Very impressive! You even spelled it right!

But since I'm not interested in 19th century theology.... or theology at all.... I'll pass.

You might want to get in touch with your "non--ego" more however.


And you're STILL using theology to support theology!

[rug]

18. Then you're in a poor position to discuss it.

[AlbertCat]

27. Then you're in a poor position to discuss it.

Who the hell wants to?

Discussing theology is like learning Klingon or Elfish. Jesus! You coulda used that energy to learn French!

[rug]

31. Apparently, you.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/121851070#post16

[AlbertCat]

35. Apparently, you.

Yeah... that's why I brought it up and mentioned Schleiermacher!


Since you've completely lost it and are now pretending you didn't bring the stupid subject up, I assume this is thankfully done.

(of course after you get your last word in!)

[Angry Dragon]

16. How come many religions have cannibalism as a major part??

[rug]

17. I can't think of one.

Can you?

You may want to read something before you answer.

[Angry Dragon]

19. Communion

[rug]

20. As expected.

Read on the Eucharist. It's not cannibalism. I'm unsurprised you're repeating this centuries old misstatement.

[Angry Dragon]

21. But it is okay to base a religion on centuries old misstatements??

[rug]

22. Be my guest.

[Angry Dragon]

23. I see you are still afraid to answer a direct question ......

Communion -------- eating this bread and wine changes into the body and blood of god
how is this not eating and drinking a body??

[rug]

24. I told you. Read on the Eucharist.

[Angry Dragon]

25. No...... you and I are discussing this ..you need to state your view

Don't send me to another person so they can talk for you

[rug]

26. No I don't. It's your (borrowed) claim that Communion is cannibalism.

Of course you proceed on a false premise.

I'll make it easy for you.

Cut and paste this, "Eucharist + cannibalism", into your Google. Don't be alarmed, The logo is celebrating Little Nemo today. It still works.

Once you do that you'll find all the answers to your tired little questions.

Of course, you may not find that as much fun as starting another pointless flame war.

[Angry Dragon]

28. I borrowed nothing

It is not a false premise because YOU have not proved me wrong
And everything I have read points to the premise that communion is the same as cannibalism in practice

I guess it is true what they say about you that you have trouble speaking for yourself

[rug]

29. Oh, it's an original thought, is it?

Go back to those people you refer to and try again.

[Angry Dragon]

30. Too bad you have trouble coming up with original thoughts

no

[rug]

32. Too bad you have trouble coming up with original thoughts

Sorry, you do that so often it's contagious.

[AlbertCat]

33. I can't think of one.

The Aztec's

And some SW North American tribes. Anasazi?

All long over with (I hope)


And there's some tribe in the South Pacific(?) that still crush the bones of ancestors and make a drink used in religious rituals.... If I'm remembering correctly.

[rug]

34. You are correct. I thought it was just human sacrifice but I was wrong.

http://www.plu.edu/~arnoldwp/motivation-cannibalism/home.html

I'm still looking for the South Pacific drink.

[dimbear]

39. Anthropophagy makes poor theology, but it certainly had its day.

Because the blood is the life, as Genesis assures us, and as Count Dracula seconded. We think of it now as found only in jungles, but it was common enough in Europe in the old days. It's not uncommon to find human bones with human gnaw marks in archaeological digs. The idea is not just nourishment but obtaining the qualities of the person consumed, gaining courage from consuming a worthy warrior's heart, or intelligence from consuming a sharp thinker's whatever part you thought did the thinking. In America the usual idea was more celebrity cannibalism, enjoying just a drop or two of the blood of the royal family. At least that's what I've read.
Dang European invaders put a stop to it.

[msongs]

2. which god? there are so many to choose from nt

[Iggo]

3. The real one? Or all them other fictional ones?

[AlbertCat]

5. We reap what we have sown in the karmic consequences of our words and deeds.

We do????

[SarahM32]

13. Yes. It's the scientific law of reciprocity, cause and effect, action and reaction.

That's why the golden rule of Hillel the Elder and Jesus of Nazareth is the Universal Divine Imperative: Treat others kindly and fairly, as you would want to be treated if you were them.

That has always been the best and wisest advice, not only because it's the right thing to do, but also because we reap what we sow due to the karmic consequences of our words and actions.

That universal truth is foremost among the core teachings of most religions, including Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Sikhism, Sufism, Taoism, Bahaism, and even Judaism. In fact, it is perfectly clear and obvious to all truly wise, understanding, fair, reasonable, compassionate, conscientious, charitable, loving, peaceful people of good will and real faith, regardless of which religion they follow.

Furthermore, most agnostics and atheists also understand it, because it is a universal scientific fact that every action tends to create a reciprocal reaction. It's the law of reciprocity, and cause and effect. And, as is often said, "What goes around, comes around."

"That is why Jews are supposed to be taught that we should not do to others what is hurtful to our self. Christians are supposed to be taught to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. And Muslims are supposed to be taught that no one is a true believer in Allah until he loves for all others what he loves for himself.

Similarly, Buddhists are taught that we should treat others as we treat our self. Hindus are taught that we should not do unto others anything that, which if it were done to us, would cause us pain. The Taoists are taught that we should regard our neighbor's gain as our own gain, and our neighbor's loss as our own loss. Those of the Bahai Faith are taught that we should ascribe not to any soul that which we would not have ascribed to our self. Followers of Confucius are taught that we should never impose on others what we would not choose for our self. And the founders of all other religions have taught the same thing in different ways." --The All Faiths Coalition for Peace, Freedom and Justice

[AlbertCat]

14. but also because we reap what we sow due to the karmic consequences

I see no evidence that such a thing is universal.

I see no evidence of this universal kind of justice.

Justice is a concept WE humans made up. "Karma" is a made up notion. It only applies when we apply it. It is very childish wishful thinking to depend on such a fantasy being somehow natural and universal.... no matter how much we WANT it to be true.


BTW... it's NOT the scientific law of action and reaction.

[SarahM32]

41. I've already shown how and why it is universal, and scientific.

You can reject the answer if you wish, and you are entitled to your opinions. But you are wrong if you think karma is a "made up notion." Many of the wisest people in the world have said the same thing about it, using different words and in different contexts.

But that's the last time I will respond to you. I can see trying to reason with you is fruitless.
.

[AlbertCat]

42. Many of the wisest people in the world have said ....

Doesn't matter. Argumentum ad populum, y'know.

And action & reaction refers to matter and energy, not made up notions of justice.

And of course you're gonna stamp your foot and go home, because you cannot support your fanciful notion except with anecdotes, not science. There's no reason in your reasoning.

[SarahM32]

45. It's not merely action and reaction. It's karmic consequences, and justice.

It's the scientific law of reciprocity that is similar to the Universal Divine Imperative common to all religions, like the Golden Rule of Hillel the Elder and Jesus of Nazareth. It's true because sooner or later, and in one way or another, we reap what we sow and what "goes around comes around." It's fact.

I'm not going to "stamp my foot and go home." For you to say that reveals you are patronizing and condescending. And that's because you cannot carry on a reasonable, rational, respectful debate, and have to resort to such tactics to try to silence me.

The fact is that you don't know what you're talking about, OR what I'm talking about. I'm talking about a message that is "A Creative View of the Future Through the Lens of History, Universal Prophecies and Reason." I believe it because it advocates the principles of Thomas Jefferson and Franklin D. Roosevelt, as well as the spiritual principles of the wisest sages, prophets, avatars, buddhas and mashiachs.

You can take it or leave it. If you don't like it, ignore it. Stop being a troll.
.

[Silent3]

60. There isn't any *scientific* "law of reciprocity". It doesn't exist.

Physical laws, like "an action produces and equal and opposite reaction" can be experimentally verified, and have been, many times over, by measuring the masses and velocities of objects, and with the words "action" and "reaction" having precise contextual meanings, meanings which can't simply be morphed at one's convenience into things like "good actions" and "evil actions", while still retaining the solid scientific foundation established for the precise and well-defined physical properties which have been subjected to experimental verification.

If you decide to take "A Creative View..." of these things, that's your prerogative, of course, but the imprimatur of science doesn't come along for the ride just because you want it to.

[SarahM32]

68. I understand your point, but look at it this way:

The law of reciprocity is not quite like the scientific laws of physical science. As I’ve already said, Newton’s law of motion or energy which states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction is somewhat similar, because it can be about a reciprocal reaction. But it really is more expressed in the social and other sciences.

Reciprocity in the social science of psychology refers to responding to a positive action with another positive action, or conversely, responding to a negative action with another negative action or reaction. The term is also used in the science of archaeology, in the legal profession, and in other disciplines, especially in metaphysics and religious disciplines.

Also, it’s nothing new. It’s been around since the oldest existing religion, Hinduism, was established. That’s why the Vedas are in Sanskrit, the oldest written language, and Hindus are taught that we should not do unto others anything that, which if it were done to us, would cause us pain.

It’s just like the golden rule, and it’s about the law of reciprocity. And all the major religions teach it, in one way or another, not merely because it’s the right thing to do, but because as we treat others, we will be treated, and what we do will generally be done to us. What goes around comes around.
.

[mike_c]

36. utterly nonsensical question....

It's fundamental assumption is false, so the question has no meaning.

[SarahM32]

37. Tell that to the victims of so-called "holy war," waged by those who think God is on their side.

The article deals with the hypocrites and "religious" bigots who are waging "holy war" and "Jihad."

Read all my posts in this thread and you may be able to see what I'm talking about, because obviously you don't know. Better yet, read the article.

[mike_c]

38. all the more reason to call BS on questions like "who does God like best...."

They all follow from the assertion that magic is real and invisible beings run life on Earth. Yes, vast numbers of people do bad things because they take one position or another on those sorts of nonsensical questions (and in fairness, at least some try to do good things because of them). Giving their delusions legitimacy by considering the question only perpetuates their religious insanity.

No, I'm sorry I didn't read the article you posted. If it examines the question "whose side is God on" reading it is a waste of ATP, IMO. My response wasn't about the article-- it was about the underlying assertion that there is a "God" to have an opinion on the matter. Nonsense and make believe.

[SarahM32]

40. Then you miss the point entirely.

If you had read the article, or any of the articles on that site, you would see that the author suggests that "religious" people do not realize what "God" really is. He does not believe in some some "Almighty Superman," and, like Jefferson, he rejects supernatural doctrines and dogma.

The article does NOT examine the question "Whose Side Is God On?" That merely refers to the fact that hypocrites who do NOT know what God really is THINK that God is on their side in a so-called "holy war."

My God, it amazes me how contrary some people can be, just for the sake of being contrary, and without even bothering to find out what I'm talking about.

Unless your next comment is informed and reasonable, I will not respond to you any more.
.

[AlbertCat]

43. just for the sake of being contrary

No... we are pointing out the fact that you are assuming, and then being all noble about it, a lot of things that are not remotely proven to be true.

and then running home in a tiff because we are challenging your shaky assumptions. Coward!


What "god really is" is a fantasy. That's why so many make up what they want god to be.... even you.

And "informed and reasonable" does not mean "I agree with you".

[SarahM32]

44. That's your opinion and belief but you claim it's true. I'm not talking about opinion or belief.

I'm talking about the scientific law of reciprocity that is basically the Universal Divine Imperative common to all religions, like the Golden Rule of Hillel the Elder and Jesus of Nazareth. It's true because sooner or later, and in one way or another, we reap what we sow and what "goes around comes around." It's fact.

I'm not "running off in a tiff." I'm merely stating a fact, that you don't know what you're talking about, OR what I'm talking about.

You claim "God is a fantasy" even though you no idea of what God is. If there is a coward here, it's not me. It's you, for being afraid to learn what you do not know, and simply refusing to admit that I know something you do not.
.

[AlbertCat]

46. scientific law of reciprocity

There is no such thing.

The only mention of it I can find is on some loopy New Age feel good site.... that is not scientific.

You don't seem to realize that Newton's (or anybody's) laws refer to matter and energy. Elementary particles are not nice to each other, they just react to each other according to laws of physics. It's like Deepak Chopra and all that crap about "quantum vibrations". Quantum vibrations are, again, about elementary particles and energy, not personalities or spirits or notion only evident in human interactions, like "justice" or "karma".

You may find poetic similarities in scientific laws and social laws, but they are poetic, not scientific.

[SarahM32]

47. The scientific law of reciprocity

Reciprocity in the social science of psychology refers to responding to a positive action with another positive action, or conversely, responding to a negative action with another negative action or reaction. The term is also used in the science of archaeology, in the legal profession, and in other disciplines, especially religious disciplines.

It is based on the fact that the law of reciprocity works and operates just as surely as other scientific laws work and operate. And while Newton’s law of motion or energy states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, that motion or energy can be in a material event, a physical action, a spoken word, etc. It’s all the same phenomenon.
.

[skepticscott]

48. No, its not...not remotely

Sometimes people are nice to people who are mean to them, and sometimes people are mean to people who are mean to them. And sometimes they just walk away or ignore and don't react at all.

You really need to keep the new age flapdoodle under control, you know....

[AlbertCat]

51. Not to mention....

.... in most societies, if you do anti-social things, you will get shunned and possibly punished....IF EVERYONE KNOWS ABOUT IT. If no one knows about your secret nefarious activities, then you may live a great life, get a beautiful eulogy and even a statue erected in your honor. The "universe" and Newton's laws of inertia are not gonna step in and dispense justice.


Y'know.... if there was some kind of scientific law of physics that dispensed some kind of universal justice, we wouldn't need laws or courts or a justice system. You'd better hope the universe's idea of what's right jives with whatever system of justice you agree with, because there are many! (fortunately, in the real world, such a notion is a fairy tale.)

[mr blur]

49. This is just Woo/New Age babble.

[cleanhippie]

50. You are just making this stuff up, aren't you? Scientific Law of Reciprocity?

Where do you get this stuff?

[SarahM32]

53. How and why it works.

I don't think I can say it better than this:

"Some very ancient religions were based on superstitious ideas and concepts of a god or gods, a higher power or powers that controlled nature and the weather, etc. Those ideas generally led ancient peoples to believe that if they pleased god or the gods, they would be blessed by good weather, good fortune, etc., and that if they displeased the god or gods, they would suffer. And, since that was the origin of religion, it is no wonder that some of those elements exist even in the major religions we have today.

Of course, the very basic idea of ancient religions is not that far off the mark. There is a natural universal process at work in the world and it has nothing to do with superstition, because from every cause there is an effect, from every event or action there is a consequence. It is a basic truth that was long ago explained as karmic consequence (in the first writings in Sanskrit, the Vedas), and later as the idea that we reap what we sow. Even later scientists explained that every action tends to create a reaction, and there is a law of reciprocity. And in America not long ago that began to be expressed in the phrase, 'What goes around comes around.' It's a natural thing."

-- Excerpt from The Nature of God

Granted, some offenders and wrongdoers may avoid suffering from the consequences of their actions for awhile, and perhaps even for a long time. But sooner or later, and in one way or another, whether it's through the persistence of people trying to bring them to justice or get even, or whether it's the natural operation of the universe, they will pay and face the karmic consequences.

In Judaism, one of the truisms is the concept that vengeance is God's, and that Man should not seek vengeance for himself because God will take care of it. And Christianity and Islam carried that even further, stating that we should turn the other cheek and not retaliate. The idea is that evil will bring about its own downfall, and that we should not stoop to the same level of the beast to destroy the beast.

The average man does not believe that, of course, and for good reason. Admittedly we need police and armed forces to deal with murders and tyrants, etc., because the natural processes take longer and we cannot wait. We need to stop them and bring them to justice. But that does not mean that truth and justice do not automatically prevail in the long run anyway.

Skeptical naysayers looking for any excuse to criticize and belittle the message may reject or dismiss this all they want, but it doesn't make it any less true.
.

[trotsky]

54. Horseshit.

You claim that:

sooner or later, and in one way or another, whether it's through the persistence of people trying to bring them to justice or get even, or whether it's the natural operation of the universe, they will pay and face the karmic consequences.

You state this as a fact, but admit it: you don't know this. You really want to believe it, but you can't state this as if it were a proven fact.

Because otherwise, as was pointed out to you, why do we have laws and courts and punishments? Would you be willing to let rapists run free, rape as many victims as they want, murder them if they so choose, and allow the "natural opposition of the universe" to set it all straight someday?

Karma is complete and utter bullshit and you have no evidence otherwise. Just naive wishful thinking.

[SarahM32]

55. Already answered, but I will elaborate.

Trotsky, you ask: "Why do we have laws and courts and punishments? Would you be willing to let rapists run free, rape as many victims as they want, murder them if they so choose, and allow the 'natural opposition of the universe' to set it all straight someday?"

You conveniently ignore what I wrote, that:

"Admittedly we need police and armed forces to deal with murders and tyrants, etc., because the natural processes take longer and we cannot wait. We need to stop them and bring them to justice. But that does not mean that truth and justice do not automatically prevail in the long run anyway."

Karmic consequences and justice left to natural and spiritual forces or energies or elements sometimes operate very slowly or gradually, as I've said. Therefore to deal with all sorts of offenders who cause others harm or loss, like rapists, sexual predators, child molesters, muggers, killers, thieves, etc., etc., etc., we need police and a criminal justice system. That's obvious.

But, again, that does not mean that truth and justice do not automatically and inevitably prevail in the long run anyway. Just observe people in their old age in their late 60s, 70s and 80s. You can tell those who have lived a good life by their happiness and joy, and you can usually tell those who are suffering the karmic consequences of a life of error and offense against others.

Oh, I know what your thinking. "Well, then why are good people victimized, and why do good people suffer?" Many people have tried to figure that one out, and I wish I knew. I have an idea, but I don't know. But whatever the reason, has nothing to do with the fact that those who live a life being greedy, uncaring, mean-spirited, cruel, offensive and harmful will suffer the karmic consequences sooner or later and in one way or another.

You don't have to believe it, and you may not until you are much older.
.

[trotsky]

57. I repeat: you have no evidence.

None. Zero. Nada. Zip.

You really, really, WANT to believe that the universe will somehow dispense punishment to those who deserve it.

But you have no evidence. None whatsoever.

Your excuses for how long it might take to work itself out are just that - excuses. "But that does not mean that truth and justice do not automatically prevail in the long run anyway." - Your evidence of this is what, exactly?

Spare me your continued personal assertions. Those aren't evidence.

[kwassa]

56. Explain Joseph Stalin to me.

Reciprocity.

He is responsible for the death of 20 million people.

He died of old age in bed, still in power, still living at the highest lifestyle point obtainable in the Soviet Union.

and Mao.

Probably 40 million deaths.

He died of old age in bed,still in power, still living at the highest lifestyle point obtainable in China.

how did they pay for their crimes?

[SarahM32]

58. Good point. But not entirely accurate.

You imply that Stalin and Mao did not suffer, but that's not true.

Stalin's health deteriorated towards the end of World War II. He suffered from heart disease, suffered a stroke, and a severe heart attack in October 1945. In March 1953, Stalin was found on the floor of his room beside his bed with his clothes soaked in stale urine. He was then bedridden until he died four days later at the age of 74. So you can’t say he didn’t suffer.

Mao was in poor health for several years before he died, and had declined visibly for at least six months prior to his death. There are reports that he possibly had ALS or Lou Gehrig's disease.
In September 1976, Mao suffered a heart attack, far more severe than his previous two and affecting a much larger area of his heart. X-rays indicated that his current lung infection had worsened, and his kidneys failed. His condition continued to fluctuate and his life was precarious. He feared death and suffered great anxiety. Then his condition took a turn for the worse. His organs failed quickly and he fell into a coma shortly before noon where he was put on life support machines before he inevitably died. So you can’t say he did not suffer.

But I grant you, there are criminal sociopaths who are without conscience and without fear, who are also guilty of horrendous offenses and murders, who manage to live their lives in luxury and in relative physical and mental comfort. Because they are without conscience and without fear, they are not affected in the same way average people are. They defy the odds, but they are few and far between.
.

[skepticscott]

61. Did they endure ANYTHING like what they inflicted on others?

Last edited Fri Oct 19, 2012, 05:54 PM - Edit history (1)

Do thousand or millions of horrible deaths equal one? Is that "reciprocity"? Does every person who does nothing but good in their lives die a peaceful, pleasant death? No. No. No. And No.

Guess your so-called scientific "law" is a "law" except when it isn't...

[SarahM32]

65. Good observation. But here's the thing ...

You are actually right that the law of reciprocity doesn't work sometimes, as I've already said.

It's not quite like the scientific laws of physical science. As I’ve already said, Newton’s law of motion or energy which states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction is somewhat similar, because it can be about a reciprocal reaction. But it really is more expressed in the social and other sciences.

Reciprocity in the social science of psychology refers to responding to a positive action with another positive action, or conversely, responding to a negative action with another negative action or reaction. The term is also used in the science of archaeology, in the legal profession, and in other disciplines, especially in metaphysics and religious disciplines.

Also, it’s nothing new. It’s been around since the oldest existing religion, Hinduism, was established. That’s why the Vedas are in Sanskrit, the oldest written language, and Hindus are taught that we should not do unto others anything that, which if it were done to us, would cause us pain.

It’s just like the golden rule, and it’s about the law of reciprocity. And all the major religions teach it, in one way or another, not merely because it’s the right thing to do, but because as we treat others, we will be treated, and what we do will generally be done to us. What goes around comes around.
.

[skepticscott]

71. Here's what you said

it is a universal scientific fact that every action tends to create a reciprocal reaction. It's the law of reciprocity, and cause and effect (Post 13)

You say here that your so-called "law of reciprocity" works in EVERY case, for EVERY action, and that it is UNIVERSAL.


It's true because sooner or later, and in one way or another, we reap what we sow and what 'goes around comes around.' It's fact. (Posts 44 and 45)

Again, your claim here is that is works not some of the time, but ALWAYS.


It is based on the fact that the law of reciprocity works and operates just as surely as other scientific laws work and operate. And while Newton’s law of motion or energy states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, that motion or energy can be in a material event, a physical action, a spoken word, etc. It’s all the same phenomenon. (post 47)

Here you're saying that it DOES work all the time, because that's what scientific laws DO, and you state explicitly that your so-called 'law of reciprocity" works JUST AS SURELY.

You really do just make this stuff up as you go, don't you? Just tossing out whatever wild, contradictory statements feel best to you at the moment? But do you really think that the people on this board are too stupid to remember or read what you typed before? Seriously?

[SarahM32]

81. Your observation is correct, though your conclusion is not accurate.

I'm not going to take the time to check, but, assuming you quoted me accurately, I did say those things.

However, for you to assume and claim that I think the people on this board are "stupid" is not merely wrong and unfair, it is provocative and mean-spirited.

Your claim that I make contradictory statements is also wrong, unfair, provocative and mean-spirited.

"The law of reciprocity works and operates just as surely as other scientific laws work and operate. And while Newton’s law of motion or energy states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, that motion or energy can be in a material event, a physical action, a spoken word, etc. It’s all the same phenomenon."

I stand by that statement, because even though some people and especially sociopaths manage to avoid the karmic consequences of their evil actions while they are alive, they no doubt suffer as they approach death and as they die, and they may suffer in the after life.

That's not because of some "Judge-God" who rewards our souls with either eternal heaven or eternal hell, but because of the natural process of the spirit-soul as it passes from this realm of existence to the next. Those weighted down by hate, rage, guilt and other such emotions may very well experience great difficulty and even trauma in the spiritual realm or "other side."

There is ample anecdotal evidence that tells us that what we are as conscious entities is not limited to these mortal bodies. They are merely temporary vehicles. Even if we just study all the reports of near-death and out-of-body experiences, that becomes fairly evident. Many skeptics still don't believe it, of course, and it's easy to simply dismiss such beliefs, but growing numbers of people do believe it.

You obviously don't believe it, and I'm not asking you to. I respect your beliefs. I would only ask that you respect mine.
.

[skepticscott]

84. "Not going to take the time to check"??

"assuming you quoted me accurately"??

Rounds are over. Enjoy your little world.

[SarahM32]

86. Thank you.

I'm glad to see you have no response other than that.

And I will enjoy the world when we finally have government that is actually of the people, by the people, and for the people, and when all religions are respected equally by our governments.

[kwassa]

62. I disagree

Stalin and Mao suffered no worse than many do at the end of their lives. Most war criminals get away free; look at the Khmer Rouge.

And many who have lived exemplary lives have nonetheless undergone terrible suffering and death. Let us talk about the 9 million murdered in the Nazi death camps. If there was a law of reciprocity, many if not most of these people would have been protected.

Millions have died in warfare though no act of their own, but through the bad luck of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Karma has nothing to do with it.

I have personally encountered sociopaths in different businesses and corporate situations here in the US who have never paid in the slightest way for their behavior, and in some cases were promoted because of it. If reciprocity is a law, it is very poorly enforced.

[SarahM32]

66. Well, I partly agree, and partly disagree.

As I've said, many people avoid the consequences of the harmful actions. As I've also said, many good people suffer the same fate as bad people. (An earthquake or other natural disaster does not discriminate.) And you're right in saying that when innocent people are harmed or die because of such disasters or war or whatever, it has nothing to do with karma.

Obviously.

However, I don't follow your logic when you said: "If there was a law of reciprocity, many if not most of (the victims who died in Nazi death camps) would have been protected."

I assume you mean that good Jews who treated others well, for example, should have been treated well in return rather than being imprisoned and killed. But I've already discussed similar scenarios, and agree it has nothing to do with karma.

I've already said that sociopaths often avoid suffering karmic consequences, and suggested why, so I'm don't understand why you bring that up.

Also, to talk about karma and reciprocity as a law that could be "enforced" reveals that you're not understanding what I'm saying. And yet, on the other hand, governmental laws that are enforced and result in people being punished by the penal system are definitely part of the process of karmic consequences.
.

[Warren Stupidity]

79. By that logic we should consider demonic possession of dogs proven

By the victims of David Berkowitz.

[SarahM32]

52. Why hypocrites who think God is on their side must be corrected.

Most reasonable, educated, informed, fair-minded people realize that the proud, militant hypocritical warmongers on the “fundamentalist religious right” — whether they claim to be Christians or Jews or Muslims — are wrong.

However, criticizing or fighting them merely gives them the excuse to dismiss their critics and enemies as “godless enemies of religion,” or “heretics” or “infidels,” or some such thing.

Furthermore, it is irresponsible for atheists to merely dismiss them with the claim that there is no God, or that all religion is a sham or a crutch or some such thing.

We must deal with hypocrites and bigots who masquerade as religious patriots because they are not merely the blind leading the blind. They are as wolves in sheep's clothing and they are causing a lot of conflict, division, and even war, death and destruction in the world in the name of religion.

The wind will be taken out of the sails of their man o' war ship and their “holy wars” will be ended only when their “religious” justification for waging war is removed.

They will be stopped only when the tables are turned on them -- when they are exposed by the truth that is contained in the scriptures of their own religion.

They will be stopped either when they are forced to face the truth, or when the vast majority of the members of their own religion reject them as the hypocrites and bigots that they really are.

Those who are open-minded and interested in how and why we can and should deal with them should read the following articles:

http://messenger.cjcmp.org/religiousright.html - Why the "Religious Right" Is Wrong
http://messenger.cjcmp.org/christianity.html - About Christianity
http://messenger.cjcmp.org/islam.html - About Islam
http://messenger.cjcmp.org/israelipalestinian.html - The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
http://messenger.cjcmp.org/fulfillment.html - The True Meaning of Apocalypse
http://messenger2.cjcmp.org/jerusalem.html - The Crusades for Jerusalem
http://messenger3.cjcmp.org/zion.html - Where Is Zion?
.

[DavidDvorkin]

59. This is equivalent to asking

Whose side is Googledooble Werglederble on?

[SarahM32]

63. You miss the point.

The question (Whose Side Is God On?) is a literary device, because the article targets proud and militant hypocrites and "religious" bigots who claim that God is on their side.

If you had read the article, or my many comments on this thread, you would know that.

It is meant to be an absurd question, because God is not an entity that chooses sides. That why the other half of the tile is "And What Will End the Conflict and Division?"

[DavidDvorkin]

64. No, you're missing the point

The question is absurd because God is an invented being, not a real one. Therefore, any characteristics you wish can be ascribed to him, and anyone can define the imaginary creature in such a way that his invented version of God will indeed be on his side.

[SarahM32]

67. I understand your point, but it merely reveals you don't understand mine.

In the first place, God is not an "invented being." If you read the message I promote, especially the article on The Nature of God, you would see that they author declares that even most religious people do not know what God is.

God is not some "Almighty Superman" in the sky who wave "His" magic wand. Hell, even Moses wrote that "God is not a man, nor a son of man" -- something Christians ignore.

Ascribing human characteristics to God is an error, because God was not made in our image. God is the Divine Light-Energy-Source of our existence, the eternal, infinite, omnipresent Essence of all life and form, and that's why it's written that we are "Children of Light."

Your comment reveals you haven't read much of anything I've posted, and you certainly haven't read any of the message.
.

[DavidDvorkin]

69. In other words, "God" is a meaningless word

that can have any characteristics you wish.

"God is the Divine Light-Energy-Source of our existence, the eternal, infinite, omnipresent Essence of all life and form" is meaningless babble.

[SarahM32]

70. Not if you've experienced it. It's very real, and more meaningful that anything else.

If you had ever experienced it or seen it or felt it, you wouldn't say that.

Those who do not only experience, see and feel what it is, but they experience, if only for an eternal moment, Cosmic Consciousness, which is very real.

There's an article that discusses that, The Highest State of Consciousness. It explains how many people have experienced it, and many people have written about it in a spiritual context, a religious context, and a scientific context. Science hasn't been able to explain it yet, but psychiatrists and psychologists acknowledge that it is a very real phenomenon.

Those who experience it realize that "God" is not some "Almighty Superman" in the sky. But even Jesus of Nazareth couldn't explain it. That's why he said to his disciples: "You have not heard God's voice or seen God's shape at any time."

It is prior to life and form as we know it, and yet it is the essence of all life and form, from the smallest nano particle to the atom to the galaxy to the universe. It's consciousness in motion, vibrating with the Divine Light-Energy-Source of our existence.

You may pooh pooh it all you want. But it's there, and everywhere.
.

[DavidDvorkin]

72. People get transcendent experiences from drugs, too

It's meaningless. It tells us nothing about the actual universe, about physical reality.

No, it's not there. It's not everywhere. It's a subjective experience. It is not a guide to reality.

[SarahM32]

73. Yes, they can, but they're not the same as those brought by natural revelation.

And you are absolutely wrong to claim "It's meaningless" and "tells us nothing about the actual universe, about physical reality"

In fact, it is profoundly meaningful, and it REVEALS the true reality and the nature of the universe.

[cleanhippie]

74. !

[DavidDvorkin]

75. Sigh. Yes. That's the only appropriate response.

[SarahM32]

76. No, not appropriate, but understandable.

And the irony is that you dismiss a message that dispels religious myths and serves to promote interfaith dialogue and understanding, as well as offer an explanation of God that both religious people and agnostics and atheists can agree upon.

It's sad that you would denigrate a message that is so needed in the world to stop all the hypocrisy, "religious" bigotry, and "holy wars."

But then, I realize it's a knee-jerk reaction against anything "religious."
.

[DavidDvorkin]

77. "an explanation of God" is a meaningless phrase

God is imaginary. And as your posts demonstrate, people assign whatever properties they want to that imaginary being or force.

You have come back to my original point. Explaining God is equivalent to explaining Googledooble Werglederble. It's all meaningless babble. You have deluded yourself into thinking that you possess knowledge when all you possess is fantasy.

[cleanhippie]

78. "You have deluded yourself into thinking that you possess knowledge when all you possess is fantasy.

[Warren Stupidity]

80. Really? What is the difference between a natural hallucination and a drug induced one?

[SarahM32]

82. A hallucination is not the same as a revelation.

A hallucination is a sensory experience of something that does not exist outside the mind, caused by various physical and mental disorders, or be reaction to certain drugs or toxic substances.

Revelation reveals something real that exists, something that is not normally perceived and not previously recognized or realized. And in many cases revelations are perceived as divinely inspired or received.

[Warren Stupidity]

83. yeah it is, or more precisely ....

You are assuming something not in evidence, but never mind that, there are many religions that use hallucinogens in order to facilitate what you call revelations.

[SarahM32]

85. Not really. And that's not at all "precise."

First, I am not assuming something not in evidence. It may not be evident to you, but it is to me, and it has been evident to many people throughout history, albeit a relative few.

Secondly, it is true that there are many religions that use hallucinogens to produce hallucinations or visions or dream states. However, as I've said, hallucinations are not revelations, and neither are visions. And I've already explained why, and even quoted dictionary definitions.
.