All Activity

What I like about the Humanist label is that it places the emphasis on what we believe while merely implying what we don't. That someone is an atheist only tells you what he doesn't believe. A humanist is to be distinguished from a nihilist, who believes life is ultimately meaningless. I personally believe nihilism = humanism + time. I'll agree with nihilists a billion years from now, but not today.

Spider-Man Homecoming Michael Keaton The Flash George

Yes. George

From the time which you started from in your post to the present day, religion (and the accompanying idea that one leader of a group of people has the right to declare their people superior over another) have been the reasons for wars, inquisitions, persecutions, forced emigration, etc., all of which were and are still crimes against humanity. Seriously, why could a supreme, loving, all-powerful spiritual being not come up with a quicker way of bringing about a "messiah," like say right away instead of 4,000 years later? I think the ideas in the song "Imagine" are more humane than the above bedtime story which whitewashes the wars, infanticides, genocides and slavery of POW's in the OT.

I consider myself humanist as well. Since there is no hierarchy in humanism, no one really gets to define it. This website gathers various definitions that permit us to ascertain some kind of consensus. For me, it boils down to the following: * No gods (or devils) or spirits, etc. * Morality is derived from human experience and based on both empathy and the greater good. * Humankind is responsible for its future and well-being. There's much more to it, of course.

You're welcome oldiesman.

Rest is a very good thing for a person and her (or his) mind to do. Best wishes.

Got it, thx.

Okay, I though I was up somewhere. I got up to wash my face when I came back to bed someone's takin' my place

Bull Durham?????

I'm reading about humanism for now.

And this thread is fond of this line. Silence of the Lambs "Well, I believe in the soul, the c-ck, the p-ssy, the small of a woman's back, the hanging curve ball, high fiber, good scotch, that the novels of Susan Sontag are self-indulgent, overrated cr-p. I believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. I believe there ought to be a constitutional amendment outlawing Astroturf and the designated hitter. I believe in the sweet spot, soft-core pornography, opening your presents Christmas morning rather than Christmas Eve and I believe in long, slow, deep, soft, wet kisses that last three days." George

No, though she was in Dracula 2000 (perhaps why you thought of her). A lot of TV, but not many movies. Tomorrow Never Dies Tale of the Mummy Fast Food The Cherry Orchard Dracula 2000 Lara Croft Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life The Phantom of the Opera Beowulf & Grendel The Ugly Truth George

I share this view and believe it was designed to eventually be a base for the one body, i.e., 'the Body of Christ' as we know it.

Don't be shocked. Moby Dick is public domain, so they don't have to pay copyrights for using the story. So, it's a more economic choice for a movie.

That's him. I was saving the really obvious ones, but a few went through that were recognizable all around- depending on what movies you like, of course.

Jeri Taylor???? I mean, Jeri RYAN???? The chick who played Seven of Nine on ST Voyager.

Thank you for making this happen. Now, people looking for updates on a 17-year old topic won't think there was news when there was not, and the new guy who had something to say has the appropriate venue in which to say it. Naturally, now that this is the case, we've probably heard the last of him.

The way I've always understood this is: God grants a chunk of land to certain peoples whom he favours, to keep them safe and to give them a base. Also, he had a plan for redemption and that plan needed a safe place for the Promised Seed to be raised in safety, surrounded by safe people. A "layette," if you like, in modern parlance. A baby cot, perhaps. As the Israelites entered the Promised Land, God himself says that he will clear it as they advanced; they would not have to fight for it. Deut 2 sets out some of this, but there is much in the early chapters of the Bible on this theme. In fact, the Israelites never fully, properly, occupied all of the land that was promised to them. The far northern part was never fully realised. In the parts where they lived, farmed, prospered, the Israelites were to be an example to the nations around them. They were to welcome strangers (reminding them that they were once strangers in a strange land - Egypt), and allow them to live in their land, their community, without harassment. The Israelites were to have no king, no "boss man" but were to look to God as their leader and protector. They were not supposed to have horses etc and put their trust in material defences. They were to look to the Lord and pray for his protection. Time progressed, they demanded a king, some of the Israelites fell away, and God had to narrow his vision to protecting the tribes of Judah and Benjamin. From time to time, the ancient tribes were captured and carried off to foreign lands - perhaps a forerunner to events millennia later? They took with them their culture, their beliefs, their lifestyle. That they spread the gospel as they understood it is clear from other OT records. For example: Daniel was carried off to Babylon, rose to high rank, and is credited with teaching that lasted at least until the magi/astronomers came to see the baby Jesus. Another example: Naaman, army commander in the army in Aram, was a leper. His slave girl told him to seek help from the prophet of Israel. Thus we see that the wider outreach of God's love is being spoken about and demonstrated. Eventually the Promised Seed was born, lived, and died. Purpose for the "layette" achieved. But I do not think this is the only reason for no longer holding the "promised land." God wants his name known everywhere. He wants his people to be an example of how to live righteously according to his standards. Jesus sent his disciples throughout Israel to spread the gospel, to bring it first to the chosen people. He even sent his first tranche of disciples out without any weaponry, and strictly forbids that. But later, he knows that the gospel is to spread throughout the world, not restricted to a small group of people, but to show that God's love is for, and available to, all. A small middle eastern piece of land was no longer sufficient to hold the chosen people; God is (re)claiming the whole earth for himself for his chosen people. Disciples now are to be the "salt of the earth," salt representing commitment. Salt in a big heap isn't much good and turns the land sour. It's poisonous. Salt in small quantities, sprinkled in food, is good for preservation, flavour, enjoyment. Do we want to keep our baby cot? Maybe, as a relic and a reminder. Maybe even treasure it, as we might treasure our childhood teddy bear or blankie. But it's served its purpose. Do we want to return to, to stay, in our baby cot? Nah, life is much richer than that. Do I say that the land currently known as Israel should not exist? No, I am not saying that. There is much that could be said, but this is not the place for that. I am carefully refraining from political comment on the land currently known as Israel and the situation therein; I'm just looking at the historical roots and later background of the promise.

The idea of the Aramaic phrase and the translation of it ("that is to say") is that Jesus said, for this purpose He was kept, reserved, spared...it doesn't carry the emphasis of being kept/reserved/spared from something (like death) but rather that His life had been kept/reserved/spared for something, for a purpose and the His death was going to be part of accomplishing that. The purpose was his life and death, the crucifixion which was in fact the next phase of the redemptive plan of His life. There are lots of iterations of that phrase, some are similar, others different to what VPW had taught from Lamsa's translation and that they seem to be regurgitating. I do agree that a cry of victory to God at that time makes more sense in the entire context of the gospel records than a cry of confusion and desperation. https://thewaymagazine.com/did-god-forsake-jesus-as-he-was-dying-on-the-cross/

Charity, if you decide to try any other religion(s) please post about it; would be interested in hearing about your experience.

Tomorrow Never Dies Tale of the Mummy Fast Food The Cherry Orchard Dracula 2000 Lara Croft Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life George

Thanks Rocky. I'm giving it all a rest. I'll check in for topics of interest though and perhaps post about those.

Here’s what I know. My life is healthier since walking away from Christianity. It's healthier mentally and emotionally which is inspiring me to work on being healthier physically. It has freed up my time since there is no longer a need/desire to work on a 24/7 relationship with a god that supposedly wanted one with me. I’m now going to let go of the need/desire to learn more about why the bible was not inspired by any kind of God. Simply put, I want to be able to stop thinking about god to the extent that only the rare thought will pop into my head and then quickly dissipate. Thanks everyone for your input – it was much appreciated!

My admonition: stay curious. I just ran across this reference to a new book dealing with an aspect of deconverting: (From the Amazon blurb) A gripping memoir about coming of age in the stay-at-home daughter movement and the quest to piece together a future on your own terms. Raised in the Christian patriarchy movement, Cait West was homeschooled and could only wear clothes her father deemed modest. She was five years old the first time she was told her swimsuit was too revealing, to go change. There would be no college in her future, no career. She was a stay-at-home daughter and would move out only when her father allowed her to become a wife. She was trained to serve men, and her life would never be her own. Until she escaped. In Rift, Cait West tells a harrowing story of chaos and control hidden beneath the facade of a happy family. Weaving together lyrical meditations on the geology of the places her family lived with her story of spiritual and emotional manipulation as a stay-at-home daughter, Cait creates a stirring portrait of one young woman’s growing awareness that she is experiencing abuse. With the ground shifting beneath her feet, Cait mustered the courage to break free from all she’d ever known and choose a future of her own making. Rift is a story of survival. It’s also a story about what happens after you survive. With compassion and clarity, Cait explores the complex legacy of patriarchal religious trauma in her life, including the ways she has also been complicit in systems of oppression. A remarkable literary debut, Rift offers an essential personal perspective on the fraught legacy of purity culture and recent reckonings with abuse in Christian communities.