1. Advertising
    y u no do it?

    Advertising (learn more)

    Advertise virtually anything here, with CPM banner ads, CPM email ads and CPC contextual links. You can target relevant areas of the site and show ads based on geographical location of the user if you wish.

    Starts at just $1 per CPM or $0.10 per CPC.

Why is it good that Jesus died today?

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by Bushranger, Mar 29, 2013.

  1. #1
    Why do we call today Good Friday, if it's about celebrating the death of Jesus?

    Are we celebrating the fact, according to the bible, Jesus died for our sins today?
    If so, isn't that a bit selfish and indulging of us? I just don't get what else could be 'good' about the day a charismatic Jesus Christ died or the logic behind calling it 'Good Friday'.

    Anyway on such a special day in history, let's not forget what Easter's really celebrating.... mmmm, chocolate.

    HAPPY EASTER FOLKS !
    Bushranger, Mar 29, 2013 IP
  2. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,925
    Likes Received:
    192
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #2
    You are religious?! You are probably a gay hating bigot!


    Jesus is a myth, but I plan to have a happy Easter anyway. Thanks man.
    Obamanation, Mar 29, 2013 IP
  3. Bushranger

    Bushranger Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,511
    Likes Received:
    57
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    115
    #3
    Thanks for your thought-provoking and insightful contribution to this thread.

    and, you're welcome. ;)
    Bushranger, Mar 29, 2013 IP
  4. JamesColin

    JamesColin Prominent Member

    Messages:
    7,819
    Likes Received:
    161
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    345
    Digital Goods:
    1
    #4
    If you see any logical fault about anything regarding religion, like calling good friday something that you believe is bad, well don't you worry about it, it's just one of so many you can't count..

    The whole stuff is crazy, like why would someone need to die for our sins, what is this whole story about?

    So god make up some rules involving sins, then its creatures make the sins, then god creates a kind of "son" which is also himself or whatever, and then this son has to die in the hand of the romans (helped by the jews as was everybody back then and there anyway) so the son dies and then lives again or whatever again, and that's the solution for our sins, OR WHATEVER..

    Really it's that kind of non sense all over the religions.. So talking about one particular aspect is like discussing the taste for one particular color with a patient in a mental hospital.
    JamesColin, Mar 30, 2013 IP
    Bushranger and thesickearth like this.
  5. Bushranger

    Bushranger Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,511
    Likes Received:
    57
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    115
    #5
    Whilst I do agree there's a lot about religions and their celebrations that doesn't make logical sense I just don't get why anyone would call it Good Friday, especially considering the chocolate is held off till Sunday.

    And, how did the whole world follow it if it doesn't make sense? There must be some logic to calling it Good Friday that I am missing, otherwise why would the whole world be into it?

    It appears nobody else here knows why we call it Good Friday either, unless of course I nailed it in the OP.
    Bushranger, Mar 30, 2013 IP
  6. JamesColin

    JamesColin Prominent Member

    Messages:
    7,819
    Likes Received:
    161
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    345
    Digital Goods:
    1
    #6
    Maybe they take the point of view of the ruling jews at the time, "Good" as in "good riddance" to be finally done with the Jesus bug? :)

    Otherwise on wikipedia there is a footnote about it:
    The etymology of the term "good" in the context of Good Friday is contested. Some sources claim it is from the senses pious, holy of the word "good", while others contend that it is a corruption of "God Friday".
    JamesColin, Mar 30, 2013 IP
  7. John Bull

    John Bull Member

    Messages:
    212
    Likes Received:
    5
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    33
    #7
    I have surfed the web on this and whilst the question is raised many times, the answer is obscure. The precise pinning down of naming Easter Friday "Good Friday" is indeterminate over history, but there must be an origin somewhere and at sometime.

    This is the most acceptable explanation I have seen so far :-

    From the earliest times the Christians kept every Friday as a feast day; and the obvious reasons for those usages explain why Easter is the Sunday par excellence, and why the Friday which marks the anniversary of Christ's death came to be called the Great or the Holy or the Good Friday. The origin of the term Good is not clear. Some say it is from "God's Friday" (Gottes Freitag); others maintain that it is from the German Gute Freitag, and not specially English. Sometimes, too, the day was called Long Friday by the Anglo-Saxons; so today in Denmark.

    An abuse of "God`s Friday" seems logical, possibly by the British. I personally am not at all happy about such an expression being used to commemorate Jesus being crucified to death. I see nothing "GOOD" about it. Easter Friday is more appropriate.

    Another similar explanation is given here :-
    http://www.biblestudy.org/question/why-is-friday-before-easter-called-good-friday.html

    The actual date and year of Jesus's crucifixion is not clear, but historians have estimated that 3.00 pm on Friday, April 3, AD 33 is as near as they can get. So our Easter is quite close to the date agreed by most theologians and Biblical scholars.

    I am a devoted Atheist, converted early in life by education and do not believe anything to do with religion, but the above seems acceptable. Jesus did live, but he was just an ancient evangelist who rode around on a donkey doing nothing but good. He certainly was no Son of God, because all God`s are fictitious imaginations of the human mind.

    We are part of the animal kingdom, a mutation of the Ape family and NO animal species on the Planet is "religious" except humans. Religion is a misguided concept of self preservation. We think that by worshipping a God, he will look after us and all will be nice and jolly throughout life. Rubbish, just look at the horrific things which happen around us killing many thousands of people and causing utter devastation. Then add all the horrific illnesses, diseases, crippling and deformative birth malfunctions, death and suffering - THEN you have the real proof of religion at work.

    If that is the grace of God and the comfort of religion, give me the Devil any day for a sidekick and I will be more than happy to take my chance with him rather than suffer the horrific punishments that any one of the worlds variety of God`s dish out to their devoted followers.
    Last edited: Apr 3, 2013
    John Bull, Apr 3, 2013 IP
    Bushranger likes this.
  8. Bushranger

    Bushranger Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,511
    Likes Received:
    57
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    115
    #8
    Thanks for your interpretation John Bull.
    God's Friday and Good Friday are so far from each other in meaning it seems incomprehensible the two would be so conflated imho.
    If we take God's Friday as the day God took back control of things in the guise of the death of his son then that is at least an explanation of God's Friday but how that could then be perceived as 'Good Friday' is beyond me.
    I'm picturing a Swiss explaining "God's Friday" to an Aussie and there I can see where the "goot" might have come into it but the fact nobody in power picked up on it (celebrating the death of Jesus as good) before Easter became a reason to celebrate chocolate bunny rabbits surprises me. You would think somebody would have picked up on it well before we gave it a holiday of its own.
    As for God Himself? I believe in Him fully and everything you read about Him is correct. I believe I am God, and you are God, and the story of Jesus is there to let you know that too. We are all Jesus, a Son (or daughter) of God. The Father, the Son and the Spirit are one. Whether he existed for real, or not, does not matter in the slightest, imho. God's the guy that delivers on everything you ever truly wanted.
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2013
    Bushranger, Apr 4, 2013 IP
  9. Corwin

    Corwin Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,403
    Likes Received:
    71
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    130
    #9
    If you accept the miracle that is human life, proven by the unexplained phenomena that is consciousness, and add to that the fact that the Universe by it's own existence defies entropy and that Einstein's own equations seem to say, hey, there's something supernatural out there...

    The argument is that hey, we live in a modern civilization that requires rules and laws. These rules and laws are required in order for us to live together peacefully, to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Without that life is anarchy and death. So we see that, by natural order, Man seeks to impose order, and that order is enforced by rules, courts, and punishment. In order to form a more perfect union, etc. Law and Order.

    So if we accept that there exists a need to enforce order on Earth for happiness to be possible, then we accept that there also needs to be a need to enforce order in the Supernatural. Law and Order.

    Now go back thousands of years and we see the influence of Jesus Christ, rippled through history, to today. No known sociological phenomena explains the popularity of Christianity through the years if Christ was a fiction. Of course, people with no experience in sociology will, in their ignorance, disagree.

    Now at this point some of you are thinking up opposing arguments because what I've explained so far isn't as obvious enough to you as the nose on your face. Well, maybe we all understand arithmetic but there exists the math of calculus. Just because you haven't studied calculus doesn't mean it doesn't exist, you just need to study. If you want to study entropy and sociology, you can come to these conclusions.

    There exist a body of historical documents that give the history of the life of Jesus Christ. These documents have been proven to be historically accurate by historical and linguistic analysis. Just because these historical documents were put together to form the basis of a religion doesn't make them any less true. Hey, there are more historical documents that mention Jesus than Caesar, but if I took all the documents that mentioned Julius Caesar together, put them in a book, and formed a religion called "Caesarium", that wouldn't make those documents any less accurate, would it?

    If you really want an intellectual understanding of the calculus of Christ's sacrifice, you must first understand the arithmetic of Judaism's animal sacrifice for sins. Law and Order.
    Corwin, Apr 16, 2013 IP
    jmjsolutions likes this.
  10. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,925
    Likes Received:
    192
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #10
    @Bushranger/JohnBull: Easter has much more to do with reaching out to pagans by throwing some of their fertility god nonsense into Christianity than it has to do with the death of a so-called Jesus.

    @Corwin: I am perfectly content to accept the fact that we don't know a whole hell of a lot more than we know. In fact, we don't really know much at all. Lack of knowledge of the AIDS virus didn't stop it from existing or killing people.

    What I am not willing to accept is the idea that some goat herder, or worse yet, some politician from 2000 years ago understood more of life's mysteries than we do today. It defies reason and common sense.

    Could aliens have landed and orchestrated the construction of the Pyramids? Sure. Al Gore could also be the byproduct of an alien abduction/sodomization. We just don't have anything that would pass the muster to be called scientific evidence that says it is so, so in the interim, I am going to stick with what we do know.

    Going a step further, we actually have credible scientists stating with absolute certainty that our earth is warming at an exponential pace and human creation of greenhouse gasses are the cause. We also have credible scientists disputing all or parts of what the other scientists are saying. If I can't lend the benefit of the doubt to the global warming folks, how [in Christ's name] can I do the same for the outrageous claims made in the bible, put there by it's authors who were the founding politicians of the Catholic Church. The same people, mind you, that brought us the dark ages. The same people who burned people at the stake for possessing a copy of a book THEY WROTE!

    I'm not trying to cast blame. I get it. Control the supply of information, shape it in a way that creates zealous and obedient group of followers who fear to stray from the orthodoxy you create. It is a story that hasn't changed much over time, and is actively employed by the church of liberalism today.

    I often fantasize about driving down the freeway, my priestly mitre on my head and bright red priestly robes flowing from my convertible Bentley, with a super model high priestess in the passenger seat, and a license plate that reads "healer". I just need a midget in the back seat.
    Obamanation, Apr 17, 2013 IP
    Bushranger, ryan_uk and thesickearth like this.
  11. Corwin

    Corwin Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,403
    Likes Received:
    71
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    130
    #11
    But the basis of this is an overwhelming collection of historical documents, proven historically and linguistically, to be accurate.

    As far as the "mysteries of life", people have no problems accepting the wisdom of Plato, Tacitus, Socrates, and even the "politician from 2000 years ago" Julius Caesar - all of which authored books about the human condition. Or Cicero, another politician from 2000 years ago, who wrote Rhetorica ad Herennium, a brilliant insight on human thought and morality. Even today it's considered a reference book.

    Read Aristoles' book Rhetoric for a brilliant insight into the mysteries of the human mind. Or the Roman historian Tacitus who wrote extensive histories about Rome, including the crucifixion of Jesus and the history of early Christianity.

    You will find no one that referred to Jesus as a goat herder or politician. You might find references to Rabbi (Teacher).

    You can find teachings similar to or the same as Jesus' in Eastern philosophies.

    But when you go back 2000 years ago, you'll see that as people lived in tribes, working and sleeping together, with dozens of daily interpersonal interaction, understanding personal interactions was a part of daily life.
    Corwin, Apr 18, 2013 IP
  12. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,925
    Likes Received:
    192
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #12
    I have no issue with the bible's (more specifically the New Testament's) value as a philosophical document. As you point out, some of the best philosophy we know of is quite old.

    I also have no issue with the idea that the bible (more specifically the Old Testament) contains quite a few verifiable historical facts. I was also not attempting to assert that Jesus was either a goat herder or a politician.

    From a historical standpoint, Tacitus, Josephus, and the writings referring to Jesus were all penned long after Jesus supposedly died. I find that odd, especially considering the Romans were meticulous note takers.

    The only thing that seems definite to me is that by the time Tacitus was putting his documents together, the Christian movement based on the existence of a so-called Jesus was well under way, likely along with a whole bevy of mythology and stories passed from goat herder to goat herder. This Tacitus well confirmed in his documents.

    Treating the bible, on the other hand, as an objectively written and truthful historical document seems like lunacy considering it's origin in the Council of Nicaea. Were there historical documents used to assemble it? Perhaps, but I've never heard of their existence. As far as I know, they made the whole thing up out of whole cloth.

    Either way, the people who published(and authored IMO) the first version of the bible were politicians who were very interested in retaining power amid a crumbling Roman empire. That fact alone is ruinous from a credibility perspective. Unfortunately, all the detailed stories about the life of Jesus come from this source and this source alone.


    For me, the whole thing completely falls apart when the supernatural is introduced, including the origin of life, an all seeing god, knowledge of the afterlife, the rules for getting there, etc, etc,etc. Outside of the obvious political benefits of penning and interpreting the "how to" book for eternal life, I think the very concept of the supernatural is anti-science. Things we don't understand are better left described as things we don't understand, unless you got a shitload of evidence to back your claims that can be peer reviewed, verified, tested, etc.


    I'm not trying to sling mud on your faith or your religion. I have these chats with a physicist friend of mine who happens to be religious(christian). He is at a point where the obvious scientific problems with a personal "god" are unavoidable, but he likes the concept because he thinks it is good for his family, his morale, and his value system. I have to admit, he might be right. Did you know that atheists are three times as likely to commit suicide?

    Being an atheist/agnostic comes with sort of a sick embrace of the fact you will one day be no more. Its not for everyone. In that spirit, I rather enjoyed "The life of Pi".

    Sorry for droning on.
    Obamanation, Apr 18, 2013 IP
    Bushranger likes this.
  13. Corwin

    Corwin Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,403
    Likes Received:
    71
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    130
    #13
    There are a number of things I disagree with from your post, but I wanted to address the above.

    Christianity was seen as a direct threat to the Roman Empire and contributed to it's decline. Let me explain - everyone in the Roman Empire was required to give their reverence to the Roman gods. It was part of their culture. Romans would conquer a territory and say, "Hey, you have Larry, the King of the gods? Look we have Jupiter! You've got Britney, the goddess of Love? Hey, we've got Venus! And they are the same! Let's have a ceremony this weekend to celebrate us correcting you with their names!" And they'd have a nice ceremony and from then on they had to use the official Roman god names.

    This was less a touchy-feelie religious thing and more civil obedience. Sacrificing to Jupiter and other gods was the equivalent of pledging allegiance to the flag. It was a ritual that made them loyal to Rome. Except that today if you don't pledge the flag you're not put to death.

    Rome didn't care about this cult of Christianity until they stopped sacrificing to the Roman pantheon of Gods. They tried talking to them, reasoning with them, told them to fake it... long story short they were put to death for it because Christianity threatened the civil order.

    But the earliest copy of anything that mentions Julius Casar was found in 900A.D., 1,000 years after the original manuscript. For Plato, 1,200 years. Aristotle, 1,400 years. You won't find any original manuscripts that survived from that period, and almost nothing derived from something dated from that period. Except for archeological evidence it could be argued the whole Roman Empire was a farce.

    The earliest copy of the Bible dates from 130 A.D. and the only dates 40 years from the original manuscript.

    As far as the historical accuracy of the Gospels, they meet the same three historical criteria as all other historical documents are tested: the bibliographical test, the internal evidence test, and the external evidence test. Discussing these would take hours. These are not simple concepts - what it comes down to is that explaining the authenticity AND BELIEVABILITY of ancient documents is not a simple discussion and that is what creates skeptics. You might as well ask me to explain the derivation of a power curve of the engine control system of a BMW, it would take just as long.

    I could go on and on - but now I must confess that I am a former atheist that used to disprove the Gospels using similar arguments as yours. My mind was changed by a well-researched book called Evidence that Demands a Verdict. It's a difficult read with many references. There's lots of back material on archeology and manuscript analysis. But it's an honest historical analysis.

    As far as "supernatural" - I don't believe in the word, I just believe that there are phenomena we can't explain yet. But by the definition of supernatural, Consciousness itself is supernatural and defies any attempt at explanation yet alone definition.

    If you really want to get freaky, study quantum mechanics which states that reality as we know it is merely a matter of perception and absolutely nothing is as it seems, only representations of reality, not reality. Then tell me what's supernatural.
    Corwin, Apr 20, 2013 IP
  14. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,925
    Likes Received:
    192
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #14
    This conflicts with the bibles own stories which have the Jews living peacefully under Roman rule without sacrificing to Roman gods. They seemed to fancy Jehovah.

    Who cares when it was found. When was it penned, and by who? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aulus_Hirtius

    In the case of Julius Cesar, we have plenty of coins and sculptures with the mans face on them, created by artists who were looking at the man himself.

    You can only be referring to Papias of Hierapolis
    Christian Oral Tradition is exactly what the name sounds like.
    Its a bit like a game of Chinese Whispers except it is played over three centuries and six generations, with the people repeating the stories all having something to gain from the way they tell the story. What could possibly go wrong?


    I am aware of, if not intimately familiar with, the science of carbon dating and determining the age of something. At least on a common sense level, I can understand the process by which historians might examine ancient manuscripts to try and gain insight with some degree of certainty into our past.

    What I am completely unaware of is any scientific method that can assign truth to something as unreproducable as turning water into wine, rising from the dead, talking to god, or healing leprosy with the a touch, regardless of how many people say they saw it, even if the witnesses of such acts wrote down their stories as recently as yesterday.

    I don't think quantum mechanics would have us throw out the scientific method, regardless of whether the cat is dead, alive, or both.
    Obamanation, Apr 21, 2013 IP
  15. Spoiltdiva

    Spoiltdiva Notable Member

    Messages:
    4,734
    Likes Received:
    1,040
    Best Answers:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    295
    #15
    For what it's worth, students of Latin are prompted to read from Julius Caesar's accounts of the Gallic Wars which were written between *58-54 B.C.* They are beautifully written, and are examples of how Latin is to be spoken. There are still original papyrus and leather manuscripts of his writings in existence, and are all made well before 900 A.D.
    Last edited: Apr 21, 2013
    Spoiltdiva, Apr 21, 2013 IP
  16. Corwin

    Corwin Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,403
    Likes Received:
    71
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    130
    #16
    The Jews were unique in that they were the only conquered territory that wasn't polytheistic, they monotheistic, so the Romans, being shrewd sociologists realised that the usual Roman methods wouldn't apply. So Palestine was treated differently and wasn't, technically, a part of the empire. Pilate wasn't a full governor, he was merely a prefect and had no voting power with the council of governors. It wasn't until Christianity spread to the mainstream Roman Empire that it was considered subversive.

    You really have to understand the period. For example, read about the founding of Rome to know why Rome considered the word "King" to be offensive - it's the American equivalent of "Fuhrer". So when the crowds replied, "We have no king but Caesar", that was an implied threat to Pilate's authority who knew he could lose his lousy job if he couldn't keep order.

    I was referring to the John Ryland manuscript (130A.D.). After that is the Chester Beatty Papyri (200A.D.), and the Bodmer Papyrus (150-200A.D.). The earliest complete Bible is my favorite, the controversial Codex Sinaiticus (350 A.D.) which has been studied extensively.


    I admit that I've never heard of CHRISTIAN oral tradition. Remember, early Christianity was an offshoot of Judaism and still conformed to the sabbath, Passover, etc. Jewish oral tradition is extremely rigid and reliable.

    I actually wasn't referring to carbon dating. I was referring to linguistic analysis of the language used and the text. And not just anyone could put together a manuscript - you had to be educated, have access to the correct materials, be disciplined in the skills required, know the forms of language used and acceptable shorthand.You had to know how to summarize what must seem to be a long story using acceptable methods so that meaning could be derived by context instead of additional words. The common man had no chance to compose a manuscript. To be a scribe is the equivalent of a doctor's education.

    I'm unaware of any scientific method that explains consciousness, or emotions, or Love, or life itself let alone how life started or why there is life in the first place. Why isn't the universe a barren, rocky existence? No, I'm not a creationist. I don't believe in coincidence because I don't believe in random. I'm also not someone that believes God plays with the laws of physics for His own amusement. I believe that the laws of physics are as much God's law as anything else.

    At it's core I believe in the power of the mind to create, that emotion is energy, and that the ultimate creative unexplainable power of Love.
    Corwin, Apr 21, 2013 IP
  17. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,925
    Likes Received:
    192
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #17
    @Corwin: The John Ryland fragment (hard to call it a manuscript), and later documents up to the time of the Council of Nicaea only provide evidence that there were in fact documents that were drawn upon by the Holy Roman Catholic church to construct the authoritative(canonized) book on the path to eternal life. I believe this is a point I was willing to concede early on. It still does not provide the kind of written first hand documentation of Jesus as there is for Julius Caesar.

    I'll go a step further. I'm willing to acknowledge the idea that Jesus may have in fact existed. He may have even been the Anthony Robbins, Billy Mays, or Vince Offer of his time. You don't get that many people rambling on about eternal life without a few good pitchmen. At the turn of the common era, it isn't like people had the scientific knowledge we have today to fact check these theories against.

    Hell, even today, Jehovah's Witnesses and Scientologists grow faster than cancer, adding to their numbers every single day, in spite of the fact that the world didn't end in 1975. Down deep, people really want to believe that this is not all there is, no matter how far fetched the prophecy.

    I can definitely appreciate that point. Any prophesy that pitches the arrival of the son of god is ripe for an offshoot as a few clever folk claim to be the Son of God, or simply an anointed prophet(re: My fantasy of being a healing priest). Mohammad did a great job creating his empire off of just such an adaptation.

    Agreed, there are no scientific explanations for many things in life: Consciousness, Love, the big question of "Why", etc. These questions all fall into the category of "Things we don't yet understand", for which "God" is as plausible of an answer as the idea that you are a figment of my imagination and none of this is real.
    Obamanation, Apr 21, 2013 IP
  18. Corwin

    Corwin Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,403
    Likes Received:
    71
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    130
    #18
    Obamanation, I think we are about as close together as we can get for this topic.

    For me, let me provide some background and summarize many years of searching in a few paragraphs: I rejected Catholicism long ago - it wasn't until years later that I recognized Catholicism's flaws as a Christian religion, such as it's emphasis on guilt, de-emphasis on Divine Love (something Pentecostals correct) and it's focus not on Jesus but on the bureaucracy of the Roman Catholic Church (which Pope Francis I hopes to correct).

    Many years ago I studied symbolism and it's importance in marketing. I discovered that the most powerful symbols to use to reach someone's subconscious were religious symbols (Gregory Bateson's Logical Levels). Looking at the first three Star Wars movies I saw how Rebel architecture had many crucifixes in the background while Empire architecture had X's. I got into Egyptology which had religion regimented and highly intellectualized.

    From symbols I tried to understand emotional communication, not for any spiritual reasons but because I wanted to get laid more often. I not only got laid, I discovered that what I thought about a girl (or a person) and the emotion I applied along with emotional expectations affected the outcome in a scary way. I experimented with different emotions and came to realize that 1) emotions are energy, and 2) Love has the most powerful energy. When looking for a spirituality that had it's focus on Love, I rediscovered Christianity. Although I consider myself to be a very non-standard Christian.

    BTW, in the entire Roman Catholic mass, at no time does the text say or even imply "God Loves You".
    Corwin, Apr 29, 2013 IP
  19. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,925
    Likes Received:
    192
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #19
    @corwin: Well that is all very touchy feely, and philosophical. When it comes to that kind of stuff, I'm more of a nihilist (I was an anarchist when I first dropped the fundamentalist religion of my youth). It probably wouldn't hurt me to take philosophy a little more seriously, if only to talk knowledgeably on the subject.

    Hah. The reason for that? If you are asking me, I'd say that is because if there is a god, there is a good chance he does not give a crap about you.
    Obamanation, Apr 29, 2013 IP
  20. Bushranger

    Bushranger Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,511
    Likes Received:
    57
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    115
    #20
    But if we are each God, He most likely loves you, deep inside.
    Bushranger, Apr 29, 2013 IP
    Corwin likes this.