Religion II

[ultracapper]

Vigors shouldn't be banned for that post. He was quoting somebody. And it was a damn educational post.

Fact of the matter is, Max Warburg himself said he was nothing more, or less, than a banker, and his purpose was to help his clients make the most of their money. The implication was he didn't identify as a German or a Jew. He was a banker.

At the highest reaches of industrial and banking lordship, there are no religions, or even national identity. Paul Warburg, as stated in Vigor's post, was a German citizen when he was a prime mover in creating the Federal Reserve System. The U.S. was on the verge of going to war with Germany, and the Fed would be a major source of financing that war effort. Paul Warburg had no issue with his position in the whole thing.

"Allow me to print the money for a nation, and I care not who governs it"
-Sir Edmund Rothschild, 1793

(That Rothschild name came up in that post of Vigor's also. Funny how the same players come up, decade after decade, century after century.)

I strongly suggest a book titled "Captains and Kings" by Taylor Caldwell. It's a work of fiction, but makes it very clear the different world view the mighty and powerful have. They keep us all hip hip hurrah for our countries and religions and creeds and beliefs and what-have-you, while they dissolved those identity restrictions in the name of finance, production, and societal engineering early in the industrial revolution era.

The maturation of capitalism and world-wide industrial output basically at the same time in the early 19th century turned nationalism and religion into archaic methods of "herding" the masses. The convulsions have been the evolution of the French and German states and the ultimate creation of the EU, the destruction of the "Empires of Discovery", and the advancement of, potentially anyway, the most deceitful shadow of them all in Plato's cave, the greatest hoax of all time, self-government. The ease of migration throughout the world, along with the development of the 3rd world economies, will add the finishing touches. The time will come when our employer or occupation will be the only definition of who we are.

I would never go so far as to suggest that the Warburg or Rothschild families (both Jewish) methodically financed or quietly supported or assisted in the holocaust in any way. But I would venture that nobody in any of those families lost much sleep over it. Those families have been beyond concerning themselves with those kinds of issues for centuries now. Like the quote above, these families finance nations, they finance societies. What those nations do, or what those societies do, however heinous, means very little to them. Their only concern is that they function.

[TJDave]

Originally Posted by ultracapper

Vigors shouldn't be banned for that post. He was quoting somebody.

Why?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by TJDave

Why?

Huh? Why what? Why does anyone quote someone else?

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Actor

The could be more than one prime mover, i.e., a polytheistic population. The Hindu's believe there are millions or perhaps billions of gods.

No, myybe some popularized watered down versions of Hinduism thinks that, but the roots of Hinduism go back before the Vedas and are only three aspects of one god similar to the trinity in Christianity.

Trimurti
https://www.britannica.com/topic/trimurti-Hinduism

The trimurti collapses the three gods into a single form with three faces. Each god is in charge of one aspect of creation, with Brahma as creator, Vishnu as preserver, and Shiva as destroyer. In combining the three deities in this way, however, the doctrine elides the fact that Vishnu is not merely a preserver and Shiva is not merely a destroyer. Moreover, while Vishnu and Shiva are widely worshipped in India, very few temples are dedicated to Brahma, who is expressly said to have lost his worshippers as the result of telling a lie and is merely entrusted with the task of creation under the direction of one of the other two gods. Scholars consider the doctrine of the trimurti to be an attempt to reconcile different approaches to the divine with each other and with the philosophical doctrine of ultimate reality (brahman).

In my opinion, representations of "three-ness" which appear in many religions and traditions are symbolic expressed in perhaps the oldest form.

Yin and Yang
http://www.mythencyclopedia.com/Wa-Z/Yin-and-Yang.html

Chinese mythology and cosmology rest on the idea that the universe is shaped and maintained by two fundamental forces called Yin and Yang. Although opposites, Yin and Yang are not in conflict with one another. Rather, they interact constantly, achieving a delicate balance. Nature and society depend on this balance for harmony. When Yin and Yang fall out of balance, disaster follows.
............................................
The third "force" is the "balance" of the two complimentary yin and Yang.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Light

I'll tell you what my definition of God is and it is Love as I have told you countless times and you refuse to believe and make fun of me for saying that by calling me a pantheist. That same definition of "God is Love" is also in the Bible as I have told you countless times in 1 John.

Now use your common sense for once. Consider what has been the main reason you are alive and what the main reason is that you and everyone else on this planet live for whether they know it or not. We all live for Love. I don't care who you are. There is only one thing we all want deep inside. The only difference between us is some people know that more than others and some people totally deny it. All the sages and deities that ever came here came here out of Love and for Love.

Love is the power that created existence. It is the only reason for existence. Without it you are lost and empty, (Hell). With it, you are the luckiest person on the planet, (Heaven).

All intelligence comes from love. Love is what creates consciousness. Love has all the answers and they are in your heart. Coincidentally, the physical heart is also the first organ that is formed in the human body at birth.

There is no where else in you that God will live but in your heart because the heart is your home and his home. Your heart rules you even though you want to follow your ego. You will never ever find peace until you surrender to the love within your heart. Once you do, you will find all the answers within including God. He will guide you from there and that is how you will know you are finally on the right path. The path of Love. It is inevitable and we will all eventually be forced to walk that path because it is our true nature.

As I have often said, your idol is love. You have this passionate love affair with this idea of love. You continually confuse the love-giver for love -- just like you believe that the kingdom of God isn't really ruled by a person but rather by love. You keep personifying love as though it were a rational, personal, moral entity.

And why do you cherry-pick and claim to believe what John teaches in 1 John 4? What makes you think those two texts and others like it haven't been manipulated, altered and misrepresented to advance people's wicked agenda?

Or why do you believe that and yet dismiss the true nature of love as Paul defined for us in 1 Corinthians 13?

Or why do you pretend to be some world expert on the subject of love when you love only by mouth and tongue -- something which John warned the church against! I notice you never cherry-pick this passage:

1 John 3:18
18 Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth.
NIV

Did you catch that -- ACTIONS and in TRUTH? This is a huge problem for you because you do not love in action and in truth. For love to be truly moral and spiritual, it must be guided and informed constantly by God's Truth -- and you can't stand the Truth! And it must be a love that actively seeks to benefit others. After all, your "best friend" taught that God's word is truth (Jn 17:17, 19). But in your world, there is no objective truth. Your personal truth is hidden, concealed and tucked away in your subjective feelings and experiences. This is why you're a big believer in moral relativism, also. If something "feels" good to you, you do it; if not, you won't.

So, please spare us of your many words about love; for your love is nothing but a self-serving kind -- exactly the kind of love Paul said in 1 Corinthians 13 is not genuine love.

And one final thing: God's love IS HOLY. His holiness permeates all his attributes, e.g. goodness, justice, omniscience, omnipotence, etc.
Holy IS what God is in his essence: Love is what God does in his holiness. God loves because he is holy. God is love because he is holy.

Isa 6:3
3 And one called out to another and said,

"Holy, Holy, Holy, IS the Lord of hosts,,
The whole earth is full of His glory."
NASB

We are commanded to be holy as God is holy.

Heb 12:14
14 Make every effort to live in peace with all men and to BE holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord.
NIV

And finally, there is no godly love within men's hearts. Man's heart is inherently evil. This is why Jesus told us we must be born again. Only God's chosen people can love with His love after they have been raised up from their state of spiritual death.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcart

And finally, there is no godly love within men's hearts. Man's heart is inherently evil.

Yeah, right that's why your god murders infants before they grow up and become adult even worse dastardly evil-doers.

Makes sense.......

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Yeah, right that's why your god murders infants before they grow up and become adult even worse dastardly evil-doers.

Makes sense.......

The holy God murders no one. All lives are His, for He is the Author of Life! All the world belongs to Him! (cf Ps 50:12).

Or doesn't the Potter have the right over his Clay to do with what he wants, as Paul asks in Romans 9?

Or doesn't the Landowner have the right to dispense his money (or gifts or grace or mercy or compassion) as he sees fit to his workers -- the stewards of HIS world? Read the kingdom parable in Matthew 20. Maybe you and Light can put your heads together and spin quite the tale for us in terms of an interpretation.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

The holy God murders no one. All lives are His, for He is the Author of Life! All the world belongs to Him! (cf Ps 50:12).

Or doesn't the Potter have the right over his Clay to do with what he wants, as Paul asks in Romans 9?

Or doesn't the Landowner have the right to dispense his money (or gifts or grace or mercy or compassion) as he sees fit to his workers -- the stewards of HIS world? Read the kingdom parable in Matthew 20. Maybe you and Light can put your heads together and spin quite the tale for us in terms of an interpretation.

Yeah doesn't a slumlord have the right to evict his tenants for not following the slumlord's arbitrary and ridiculous rules?

Btw, speaking of absurd rules....

Deuteronomy 25:11-12 King James Version (KJV)

11 When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets:

12 Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Yeah doesn't a slumlord have the right to evict his tenants for not following the slumlord's arbitrary and ridiculous rules?

Btw, speaking of absurd rules....

You're deflecting. All souls belong to God and eventually return to him for judgment (Ezek 18:4).

There's nothing absurd about God's holy law. Only your profane, corrupt mind would see things that way.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

You're deflecting. All souls belong to God and eventually return to him for judgment (Ezek 18:4).

There's nothing absurd about God's holy law. Only your profane, corrupt mind would see things that way.

NOTHING absurd here????

Deuteronomy 25:11-12 King James Version (KJV)

11 When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets:

I believe "the secrets" refers to his genitals, or private parts.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

NOTHING absurd here????


I believe "the secrets" refers to his genitals, or private parts.

I have a "secret" to tell you: Get a life!

Btw, have long have you been oblivious to the fact that doing nasty things to a man below his belt line is usually considered to be dirty fighting? I suppose that idea, too, is absurd, heh?

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I have a "secret" to tell you: Get a life!

Btw, have long have you been oblivious to the fact that doing nasty things to a man below his belt line is usually considered to be dirty fighting? I suppose that idea, too, is absurd, heh?

So a woman attempts to rescue her husband, from an opponent, god writes a rule she should not grab that opponent by his nuts?? I guess a major judicial decision to be studied for eons?

Meanwhile still no rules about god murdering infants, woman and children and farm animals.

Guess your god would rather watch clean lady wrestling?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by hcap

No, myybe some popularized watered down versions of Hinduism thinks that, but ...

My source is the Netflix series The Story of God with Morgan Freeman. Didn't mean to offend. The point is that the prime move could be multiple entities.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Btw, have long have you been oblivious to the fact that doing nasty things to a man below his belt line is usually considered to be dirty fighting? I suppose that idea, too, is absurd, heh?

"There is no dirty way to win. There is only winning" -- Famous race car driver.

"As long as I got bullets left there ain't gonna be no kung fu fightin'" -- Army drill sergeant.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Actor

My source is the Netflix series The Story of God with Morgan Freeman. Didn't mean to offend. The point is that the prime move could be multiple entities.

I don't think Netflix got it right.
I studied meditation and Hindu philosophy with a disciple of the Shankaracharya of Northern India

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shankaracharya

(शङ्कराचार्य) (IAST: Śaṅkarācārya, Shankara acharya) is a commonly used title of heads of monasteries called mathas in the Advaita Vedanta tradition. The title derives from Adi Shankara, an 8th-century AD reformer of Hinduism. He is honored as Jagadguru, a title that was used earlier only to Krishna.

I understand your point about a "prime mover" No matter how many deities, it is still a fallacious medieval argument.

The meditation I practiced refers to three forces, inner and outer:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prak%E1%B9%9Bti

According to Samkhya and the Bhagavad Gita Prakrti or Nature is composed of the three gunas which are tendencies or modes of operation, known as 1) rajas (creation), 2) tamas (destruction) and 3)sattva (preservation), Sattva encompasses qualities of goodness, light, and harmony.

That perhaps reinforces my views about the mythology of the Trimurti (Hindu) and Trinity in Christianity In fact in meditation one may observer the ongoing struggle between the active (rajas), passive (tamas) and the possible balance and equilibrium of sattva.

Theory in some religions has a practical aspect.