@MrDawn It was very much like that actually.
Nice shot of the Coreopsis patch. I have them here but usually in more scattered patches.
We have patches of wild Black-eyed Susans and I often mistakenly call them “Wild-eyed Susans”, much to the humor of my wife.
1 Like
I must admit, that is really cute.
They grow like crazy through the month of June here. There are vast stretches of yellow and brown just about everywhere you look, and they grow almost as tall as my youngest daughter.
1 Like
You are correct. Taking responsibility for our actions (good or bad) and recognizing our shortcomings to make attempts to improve ourselves is indeed the first measures to becoming a better person. Very true. Here’s the problem, though, when religion is thrown into the mix (particularly Christianity). It is something I have seen firsthand countless times in my life, and those who do it are likely not even aware of what they are doing. Basically, in simple terms, God and Satan both get used as scapegoats, while the individual truly at fault takes ZERO responsibility for what he/she did. As such, he/she totally fails to recognize/acknowledge the flaw within themselves that could often be easily corrected. Therefore, they see no reason to change their behavior, thus going on to repeatedly make the same mistakes. The typical default positions are…
-
“Well, this is how God made me, so there’s nothing I can do about it.”
-
“I was weak and tempted by Satan. I am so ashamed, but I know God will forgive me. I’ll pray that God will comfort those that I hurt. It’s in God’s hands now. Nothing more I can do about it.”
There are a few others I’ve heard, of course. But you get the idea. In other words, “No need for me to change who I am or how I think. God is in control.”
4 Likes
I disagree. One just needs to recognize there is room for improvement and move towards improving. Many times I have set off down a path, only to wind up in a completely different place and result than intended.
If you set off with a specific goal, you are restricting your range and scope of discovery.
2 Likes
I couldn’t agree more.(I could but I would be accused of pandering so I won’t insult such astute and aware individuals by indulging in such a despicable act.)
Nature photography, specifically birds, has taught me the value of this premise. I often end up in an entirely different set of circumstances than what I imagined when I set off to capture a specific image.
I agree with you.
You asked me to refrain from quoting scripture. However, scripture is very much a part of how I think. It will likely happen throughout our discourse, but only in order to present a fuller picture of how it is I see things.
William Shakespeare’s play The Life of King Henry V includes a nighttime scene in the camp of English soldiers at Agincourt just before their battle with the French army. In the dim light a partially disguised, King Henry wanders unrecognized among his soldiers. He talks with them, trying to gauge the morale of his badly outnumbered troops, and because they do not realize who he was, they were candid in their comments. In one exchange they philosophized about who bore the responsibility for what happened to men in battle—the king or each individual soldier.
At one point King Henry declares, “Methinks I could not die any where so contented as in the king’s company; his cause being just.”
Michael Williams retorts, “That’s more than we know.”
His companion agrees, “Ay, or more than we should seek after; for we know enough, if we know we are the king’s subjects: if his cause be wrong, our obedience to the king wipes the crime of it out of us.”
Williams adds, “If the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make.”
Not surprisingly, King Henry disagrees. “Every subject’s duty is the king’s; but every subject’s soul is his own.”
Shakespeare does not attempt to resolve this debate in the play, and in one form or another it is a debate that continues down even into our own time: who bears responsibility for what happens in our lives?
When things turn bad, there is a tendency to blame our fellows or even God. In spiritual matters some suppose we need not strive for personal righteousness, because we are good enough “just as we are”.
Some believers use their faith to promote that idea, while others use their lack of it.
But, the truth is that God intends that we should act according to the moral agency, or free will that we have been given and, so that every man may be accountable for his own actions in the time to come.
It is His will that we have the principal decision-making role in our own life’s production. God will not live our lives for us, nor does He control us as if we were His puppets or play with us as His pets.
The classic concept of God as a deity dominated by kingly morality was clarified by Jesus to that affectionately touching level of intimate family morality of the parent-child relationship–of which there truly is no more tender and beautiful mortal experience.
The concept of God as a king-judge, although it fostered a high moral standard and created a law-respecting people as a group, left the individual believer in a sad position of insecurity respecting his or her status in time and in eternity. The later Hebrew prophets proclaimed God to be a Father to Israel; Jesus revealed God as the Father of each human being. The entire mortal concept of God is transcendently illuminated by the life of Jesus. Selflessness is inherent in parental love. God loves not like a father, but as a father.
God is divinely kind, even to sinners. When rebels return to righteousness, they are mercifully received, “for our God will abundantly pardon.” “I am he who blots out your transgressions for my own sake, and I will not remember your sins.” “Behold what manner of love the Father has bestowed upon us that we should be called the sons of God.”
It is erroneous to think of God as being coaxed into loving his children because of the sacrifices of his Sons or the intercession of lesser or finite creatures, “for the Father himself loves you.” It is in response to this paternal affection that God sends the marvelous Comforter to indwell the minds of men. God’s love is universal; “whosoever will may come.” He would “have all men be saved by coming into the knowledge of the truth.” He is “not willing that any should perish." “Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.”
I’m not quite sure where we disagree. Taking steps towards improvement does not denote a set path, only the the determination to go somewhere else.
Oh, dear. You actually resorted to the “Free Will Clause”? Apparently you haven’t been to the “Free Will” thread. Here’s a little excerpt from one of my posts there…
"Hmmm… 
… Let’s seeee… Based on what I was taught, God (of the bible):
- Knows EVERYTHING. Past. Present. FUTURE.
- As such, God knows everything about ME and every single person who has ever existed and who will ever exist. And he knew LONG BEFORE we ever existed.
- Eons before I was ever born, God knew EXACTLY every encounter/experience I would have in my life. He knew EXACTLY how I would react. He knew EXACTLY how I would think/feel. Even as I type this post, God knows EXACTLY what I will type, even BEFORE I know what I will type.
- God is perfect, and he has a PERFECT PLAN for humanity.
- NOTHING can change that plan. NOBODY can do anything to change that plan.
- EVERYTHING that happens is done as part of God’s Perfect Plan.
But, uhhhh, sure. You have Free Will to do whatever you want to do and make whatever decisions you want to make."
2 Likes
I’m just wondering when you’re going to come out as an Atheist seeing as you’re on here all of the time. I just figured if you’re having doubts about your religion. It’s okay. You can tell us.
Your all-knowing god allows an untrained gullible Eve to eat that apple, condemning each human to a life colored by sin. Then when mankind got a little too sinful, your divinely kind god caused the great flood and killed millions. Later on your god sacrificed himself to himself because your all-knowing god allowed sin into mankind.
And it was not really a sacrifice, it was a temporary suspension of life, because jesus is now residing in heaven.
Can you even begin to understand what this great flood was like? Imagine it happened today. The rains come down heavy, the sea levels rise. People start moving to high ground and tall buildings. Once they run out of room they start to fight for the highest point. The water keeps rising, and there you are, there with your daughter frightened and crying. You raise her up, making a last attempt to save her, but understanding that she will also drown. But the water covers you and your last thought is WHAT?
God is divinely kind?
2 Likes
But then you go on to say “I won’t quote scripture” only to talk about your deity as if he’s a person. My mom and several people are like “I know you don’t believe in god BUT…” and they just start talking about their sky father. One claim after the next. Funny how you guys just can’t resist to force that right on in thinking we won’t mind. I feel like that’s a form of forced indoctrination. Lets just pat the atheist on the back and tell him my god loves him. That’ll make a believer out of him.
[quote=“MrDawn, post:71, topic:2928”]
I’m just wondering when you’re going to come out as an Atheist seeing as you’re on here all of the time. I just figured if you’re having doubts about your religion. It’s okay. You can tell us.
[/quote
I don’t have to agree with you about everything to learn from you.
Most of us are former Christians.
You don’t think you won’t get called out on it when you resort to making “god claims”?
This is a common tactic my family members used and you just pulled that card. Agree or disagree. When you make a claim you automatically accept The Burden of Proof.
Here’s what I really think. If you would have learned anything. You’d know Atheists don’t believe in the existence of gods. We go off of evidence. But here you are. Making god claims. Slowly pushing your religious views in inch by inch. Like spoon feeding a child. I’m starting to think you have other interests. Are you here to indoctrinate? Because I think you are.
For me it is “I require a good reason to believe something”.
And that “good reason” is usually built on evidence or a powerful and rational argument that is not easily contradicted.
3 Likes
You’re a monotheist. What else is there to tell?
I’m more of the same. Kind of like you’ve stated. I myself need evidence that is admissible in a court of law. I can’t go off of people claiming something is real when there’s no evidence backing it. It’s very much the same with a lie with how Cognostic describes someone “claiming” they murdered someone and put the dead body in the trunk of their car when there’s no forensic evidence that there ever was a body in the trunk of their car or any evidence they killed anyone. Just their word.
I’d love to believe the Lochness Monster existed. Just because I want it to be. Doesn’t mean it will be. It’s the same how Christians want Jesus and God to exist. Just because they want it to be so doesn’t mean it is so. Normally something that exists has undeniable evidence. Like the Tasmanian Tiger. It existed. It went extinct. We have empirical evidence and Tasmanian Tiger pups in jars full of formaldehyde. We have undeniable evidence of it’s existence.
1 Like
@MrDawn I’m just curious, but what is your standard of evidence for a historical personality?
What is your standard of evidence for say, Lycurgus, Socrates, Joan of Arc, or Vlad Dracul?
If you went to court regarding their historicity, what would the burden of proof be in order to accept them as authentic human beings?
I think you know. You’re just playing games now.
If you’re gonna play that card, you might as well have asked if Abraham Lincoln existed. It’s a question of historical claims versus supernatural claims. It’s down to the evidence. We have historians who have acknowledged and documented his existence, there were a shit load of people who saw him and placed him in that timeline, we have his clothes, we have pictures, we have his letters, we know where he lived, that he was the president, one of his last remaining descendants died in the 80’s. We have volumes of historical and objective evidence that he undeniably existed.
The Blood Relics From the Lincoln Assassination | History| Smithsonian Magazine.
I’m not. I will tell you mine.
It is just that everybody keeps mentioning court… And I was under the impression that the burden of proof for historical personalities is similar, but necessarily different.
Abraham Lincoln was a president. He has multitudinous surviving written works, paintings made of him contemporaneously, and even actual photographs taken. I’m sorry I haven’t read the article yet, but topically, he is not a good choice for historical comparison.
My standard for evidence is generally the same: It comes from more than one source. Traditionally, I investigate upon my own suppositions. I examine multiple classical (if applicable) and modern sources. Primary sources, and secondary sources. I also use Wikipedia, or/ or language dictionaries or ancient records that contain ancient script such as Akkadian. I’m very interested in language and terminologies.
If the classical opinion comes from someone I am not familiar with, I generally research that person also. For instance, when I was researching Peter, I found three different classical writers that attested to his historicity, along with his being the first Bishop. I didn’t just use Paul’s identification of him.
I try to take into account the time period: the social, economic, religious, and political climate of a given subject.
I’m interested in archaeology for some things. Not especially in the case of Jesus-- but it is highly important in other topics.
I looked at archaeology a lot when I was studying up on other events in the Bible and elsewhere.