Why I Believe
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-04-2017, 09:36 AM
RE: Why I Believe
(08-04-2017 01:03 AM)SeaJay Wrote:  
(08-04-2017 12:26 AM)Paleophyte Wrote:  You want errors in the Bible? Look to your least favorite passage in Revelations. The author is so woefully ignorant that they do not appear to understand:
- The basic chemistry of combustion. How do you burn the immaterial?
- The basic physiology of the human nervous system. Even if fire could harm your soul you wouldn't feel it. Your nerves are back with the rest of your slowly decaying body.

Threatening a soul with a lake of fire is about as meaningful as waterboarding is to an oyster. The profound ignorance displayed by the author does not speak to the work of a deity, but rather somebody who flunked science in junior high school. Or more accurately, a Roman era priest trying to frighten people even more ignorant than he was.
Yes, this is something I've thought about as well. But as one YouTuber said, if you ask a theist why the fire doesn't annihilate the body, they'll respond it's 'magic fire'. Or something like that.

Does "Because it's magic!" strike you as a valid explanation of anything?

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2017, 09:44 AM
RE: Why I Believe
(08-04-2017 08:09 AM)SeaJay Wrote:  18:30 Canaanites worshipped 'El', Israelites stole the worship of 'El'. No, they just took the title 'El' as it was a generic title.

Right, El had a wife by the name of Asherah and Yahweh had a wife by the name of Asherah, who was worshiped in the same temple as Yahweh in Jerusalem.

God's Wife Edited Out of the Bible -- Almost

Doesn't sound too generic to me, sounds pretty specific.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2017, 09:58 AM
RE: Why I Believe
(08-04-2017 08:09 AM)SeaJay Wrote:  Which seems to destroy the Evid3nc3 video. Here's the main points:

3:06 Karen Armstrong is not a scholar, she's a layman at best and even sceptical scholars have challenged her. Evid3nc3 doesn't cite anyone else throughout the video

3:36 Nobody has heard of any scholars who take Karen Armstrong seriously

I would caution you about giving credence to apologists that are trying to discredit someone because they don't consider them worthy of criticizing their book of myth.

This is an underhanded tactic that again shows how desperate and dishonest apologists are.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2017, 10:28 AM
RE: Why I Believe
(08-04-2017 12:36 AM)SeaJay Wrote:  
(07-04-2017 04:21 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  Seajay,

You're looking for evidence that the Bible is not God's handiwork.

Nice work so far but the apologists have had centuries to polish their excuses. Those are easy enough to spot from the outside but you aren't there yet. Let's try a different approach.

Why don't you look at what the Bible doesn't have. If it lacks vital information that even the most poorly written tabloid would include might you reasonably conclude that it was not Divinely Inspired?
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Are you talking about moral instruction, or scientific theories?

Neither. I'm talking big basic fundamental information. Really basic stuff that should not be missing.

The following is not in the Bible:

The date of Jesus' birth. According to Christianity this is the second most important event in history but nobody thought to jot down Jesus' birthday. The date is not 1 AD since Herod dies in 4 BC. One might reasonably expect such a date to take the form of "In the 40th year of the reign of Augustus Caesar..."

The date of Jesus crucifxion and resurrection. According to Christianity this is the single most important event in history but not one of the authors recorded when it was. This in spite of the fact that several of them were supposedly there for the event.

The correct name of the main character. It isn't Jesus any more than it is "Hay-Zoose". Jesus was a Hebrew but "Jesus" is Greek. His proper name is actually fairly common.

So ask yourself, how bad a biographer/historian/storyteller do I have to be to have left out the correct name and dates of birth and death of the main character in my book? What would you think about a book on the life of JFK that didn't have that info? We know these facts about the Roman Emperors so how is it that we don't know them for Jesus Christ? Does this gross omission suggest the Hand of God?

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2017, 10:43 AM
RE: Why I Believe
(08-04-2017 09:32 AM)Paleophyte Wrote:  
(08-04-2017 12:29 AM)SeaJay Wrote:  [Not preaching, just giving my thoughts]The way I see this is, before they ate the fruit they were immortal and couldn't die. When they ate the fruit they stopped being immortal and did eventually die. I think the proposition that they should have died instantly (or at least that day) is flawed.

That doesn't hold up well:
- In Genesis 3:22 God is clearly concerned that Adam will become immortal, meaning that he is not.
- Can you think of another single instance in the Bible where God tells somebody that they'll die if they do something and then they go on living for hundreds of years? The biblical God is big on smiting and pillars of salt, not metaphor.
I thought they already had eternal life but it seems not. So they were going to die at some point, maybe in 24 hours maybe in 900 years. I'm asking myself why did God tell them they would surely die when they were going to die anyway? Something doesn't add up.

“I am so clever that sometimes I don't understand a single word of what I am saying.” ~ Oscar Wilde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2017, 10:46 AM
RE: Why I Believe
(08-04-2017 09:44 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
(08-04-2017 08:09 AM)SeaJay Wrote:  18:30 Canaanites worshipped 'El', Israelites stole the worship of 'El'. No, they just took the title 'El' as it was a generic title.

Right, El had a wife by the name of Asherah and Yahweh had a wife by the name of Asherah, who was worshiped in the same temple as Yahweh in Jerusalem.

God's Wife Edited Out of the Bible -- Almost

Doesn't sound too generic to me, sounds pretty specific.

The worship of El also had the occasional blood sacrifice ... and this residual ritual occurs several times in the Bible as though the Hebrews had stolen the idea from the Canaanite religion (weren't the Hebrews an offshoot of the Canaanites?)

You have God commanding Abraham to sacrifice Isaac for starters -- and even though God stopped Abraham at the last second, the fact that offering a blood sacrifice to God seemed perfectly natural to Abraham is a clear indicator that this happened within the tribe of Israel. After all, when God made the command, Abraham simply obeyed, even lying to Isaac twice in order to lure his unknowing son to the sacrificial spot. Abraham was not one bit surprised, aghast, horrified, gobsmacked, or otherwised phased by having to make such an offering of blood to this (wicked) God of his. To my mind, this is because the god El was commonly worshiped with blood sacrifices -- and the Hebrews took that custom (as well as most of the others) when transmogrifying El into Yahweh.

Then you have Jepthath's sacrifice of his daughter. "If I win the battle against the Ammonites, I will sacrifice to you the first living thing I see" -- or something similar to that. Of course, that "living thing" happened to be his daughter so ... she just had to die, another blood offering to El *cough* I mean the new god Yahweh. Why would Jepthath even *think* of offering to Yahweh a blood sacrifice for a victory unless blood sacrifices were still a relatively common occurrance? And by "blood sacrifice," what I'm *really* saying is "human sacrifice."

Note that, this time, God did not stop Jepthath. At least it didn't have to be a burnt offering since, as we all know, this wonderful, loving God -- the wellspring of all that is good in the universe -- absolutely *adores* the smell of burning flesh; it is so pleasing to his nostrils. For, uhm, some bizarre and creepy reason.

Then there's the ultimate blood sacrifice -- Yahweh supposedly sacrificing his own son to himself so that he can forgive everyone. *boggle* As if that makes any sense. Yet fully 1/3 of the world's population has been bamboozled into thinking that Yahweh's unnecessary blood sacrifice to himself was a beautiful, wonderful thing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Shirina's post
08-04-2017, 10:49 AM
RE: Why I Believe
(08-04-2017 09:58 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
(08-04-2017 08:09 AM)SeaJay Wrote:  Which seems to destroy the Evid3nc3 video. Here's the main points:

3:06 Karen Armstrong is not a scholar, she's a layman at best and even sceptical scholars have challenged her. Evid3nc3 doesn't cite anyone else throughout the video

3:36 Nobody has heard of any scholars who take Karen Armstrong seriously

I would caution you about giving credence to apologists that are trying to discredit someone because they don't consider them worthy of criticizing their book of myth.

This is an underhanded tactic that again shows how desperate and dishonest apologists are.
Ad hominem attack, that's what came to my mind. But then I can't help think what would be the reaction if Karen Armstrong was a theist presenting some book/argument to try to prove some part of the bible.

“I am so clever that sometimes I don't understand a single word of what I am saying.” ~ Oscar Wilde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2017, 10:53 AM
RE: Why I Believe
(08-04-2017 10:43 AM)SeaJay Wrote:  Something doesn't add up.

There it is. The epitaph of religion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Airportkid's post
08-04-2017, 11:08 AM
RE: Why I Believe
(08-04-2017 08:09 AM)SeaJay Wrote:  3:06 Karen Armstrong is not a scholar, she's a layman at best and even sceptical scholars have challenged her. Evid3nc3 doesn't cite anyone else throughout the video

His sources are cited inn the video description, which I already told you.

Here they are, copied from Evid3nc3's video description.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotheism...evelopment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of...h#Religion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh#Ear...eh-worship
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/En%C3%BBma_Eli%C5%A1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Ashurbanipal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Ca...e_religion
https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4191
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of..._and_Judah
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_h...references

Yes, she is a layman, but an educated and experienced one. I've seen nothing that supports any claims that she is a crank, pushing fringe ideas, or otherwise operating outside of the mainstream. The biggest criticism I could find was Sam Harris (a neuroscientist) calling her 'naive' in regards to Islam, but considering how the primary criticism of Sam Harris is how hawkish he is on Islam, it's a horse a piece really.



(08-04-2017 08:09 AM)SeaJay Wrote:  3:36 Nobody has heard of any scholars who take Karen Armstrong seriously

Question, how does one cite a lack of reference?

Can he site any mainstream scholars that calls her a crank?

Does her lack of credentials invalidate her points? Does it change the evidence she cites?



(08-04-2017 08:09 AM)SeaJay Wrote:  5:03 Just because the form of how we think of God philosophically, didn't first appear as we think of Him in this time does not mean He didn't exist earlier

So, what you're proposing is that the singular supernatural creator of the universe is involved in the longest con, in order to purposely obfuscate and muddy his origins? For what purpose?

Please tell me he has a better explanation than 'divine conspiracy'.

Apply Occam's Razor. We have evidence for the existence of polytheism, that the ancient Hebrew borrowed their religion wholesale from their neighbors, who were also polytheistic. There is clear evidence that as their religion evolved, alongside political and ideological shifts, that those in power rewrote, edited, and added to their holy books.

What is the simpler explanation? That Judaism evolved over time, just like every religion created before or since? Or that the creator of the universe decided to hide his true nature, even from the one and only tribe of illiterate desert goat herders he deigned to present himself to?



(08-04-2017 08:09 AM)SeaJay Wrote:  7:03 Enuma Elish: There was a little prayer found in am amulet that predated this time period. This is referring to a single god, how can you say this started at this time if it has already been written down? Not sure what he is saying here.

The Enûma Eliš is the Babylonian creation myth, which predates the story of Genesis. The Babylonians were polytheists, just like the ancient Hebrew. Much in the same way the flood of Noah borrows from precursor flood stories (Epic of Gligamesh, Atra-Hasis), it is no surprise that the earliest bits of Genesis appear to borrow heavily from neighboring religious traditions and belief structures.



(08-04-2017 08:09 AM)SeaJay Wrote:  8:26 Evid3nc3 says at 1750 the belief system was not monotheistic but they reply with 'say so what?' The bible admits Abraham worshipped many gods. God calls Abraham out of that to be monotheistic.

What the apologist fails to highlight is how that is a later addition to the story, that can linguistically be tied to the very time when the monolatarist polytheists (the Yahwhists) and later the monotheists, went back and edited the text and inserted new passages. Specifically passages needed to explain away the different names used for different gods, trying their best to reduce the existence of mentions of Elohim and El Elyion as being different names for the same god; when they originally referred to very different individual gods.

The books were revised by those in power. Why doesn't the apologist tell you that?

Simple answer? It's an inconvenient truth.



(08-04-2017 08:09 AM)SeaJay Wrote:  9:20 How does Evid3nc3 know the Babylonian ideas about what the earth and sky looked like (domes earth etc) were edited into Genesis and Isaiah? He never says what parts were already there and which were edited in later.

When you remove the later editions and revision, according to the linguistic analysis, and compare what is left, it is surprising similar to the creation stories of neighbors that predated the formation of a distinct Hebrew culture.

Occam's Razor time again. Which seems more plausible, and makes the least amount of assumptions? That the people who would eventually form the ancient Hebrew people borrowed their creation myths from the common stories that already existed with the peoples they shared the region with? Of that the singular supernatural creator of the universe chose this moment to let the ancient Hebrew in on the 'truth', which just so happened to be very similar to the stories which already existed and predated them, and would also be shown to be entirely false in the modern era? Which is a simpler explanation? Cultural appropriation? Or that the god of the ancient Hebrew was both unoriginal and a liar?



(08-04-2017 08:09 AM)SeaJay Wrote:  11:06 Apparently the bible admits the Jews and Christians took pagan ideas and made them so they could use them. It's not an issue apparently it was known to be done. It was what they did back in the day.

That's trying to hide cultural appropriation under the facade of ownership.

It's trying to deflect just how unoriginal Judaism and Christianity are. These faiths are not unique, and did not develop in a cultural vacuum. They evolved and changed much in the same way as did other religions around them, before them, and since them. If you zoom out and take the broad perspective, it shows just how banal their existence is. The supernatural is not needed to explain the existence, successes, and failures of Judaism and Christianity.

See Also: Islam and Mormonism.



(08-04-2017 08:09 AM)SeaJay Wrote:  15:00 Still no archaeological evidence of Yahweh. You can't have the god of Israel without Israel being there and they were in Egypt so Yahweh wouldn't be there.

What? Dude, Yahweh Sabbaoth wasn't the god of Israel at first; that's kinda the point. Before the Yahwhists made him the head of the pantheon, and the Priestly sources turned him into the one god of all creation, he was just a Canaanite regional war deity with jurisdiction over the lands of Judea only. So if you were outside of his jurisdiction, he had no power over you; another hold over from the Canaanites. Bhaal and Ashera too were tied to specific regions.

Ever wonder why the Israelites lost a battle because the other side had iron chariots, even though they were backed by the all powerful creator of the universe?

The LORD was with the men of Judah. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had chariots fitted with iron. - Judges 1:19

Because when that passage was originally written, Yahweh simply wasn't the singular all powerful creator of the universe. He was still just a regional war deity, who could be best by the efforts of mortals backed by competing deities.

But when you're getting you ass handed to you by your neighboring tribe, the tree hugging harvest deities tend to fall to the wayside of the war deities you think will save your ass while you fight for your life.



(08-04-2017 08:09 AM)SeaJay Wrote:  18:30 Canaanites worshipped 'El', Israelites stole the worship of 'El'. No, they just took the title 'El' as it was a generic title.

It was 'El Elyion' and 'El Shadai', referring to the 'one most high', which was the head of the pantheon, and a distinct being from Yahweh Sabbaoth, as he was just the Lord of Hosts (lord of the armies).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_(deity)

Specific deities known as El or Il include the supreme god of the Canaanite religion and the supreme god of the Mesopotamian Semites in the pre-Sargonic period.

They didn't just borrow El as a generic term at first, as they also borrow other very specific Canaanite names for different gods. While you can try to hand way away El as being generic, that doesn't cover all uses of the title. It also doesn't explain specific references to Bhaal, Asherah (specifically referred to as the wife of El, further solidify El as the specific head of the pantheon), and Yahweh as separate and distinct gods.


So once again, is this the singular creator of the universe engaged in a long con with one tribe of desert goat herders? Or more cultural appropriation along with historical revisionism? Remember to, that we have evidence of the revisions.



(08-04-2017 08:09 AM)SeaJay Wrote:  23:52 Abraham started to focus on this one god, and then with the next breath he says they are polytheist?

Abraham didn't exist, and is a mythical construct, just like Noah, Moses, and Jacob.

However his contemporaries were all polytheistic pagans. All of the religions of that region were polytheistic, before the later advent of Zoroastrianism (the first true monotheism, which does predates the ancient Hebrew's eventual conversion and revisionism to monotheism).

It was not uncommon to take one god of the pantheon on as your Elohim, your patron. That didn't make the rest of the god disappear, just just means that you made a pact to dedicate yourself to that deity in particular. In the earliest version of the story, Abraham does that to El Elyon. Later revisions are needed to claim that El Elyon was another name for Yahweh, in order to give credit to Yahweh for Abraham's devotion. Those were later politically motivated revisions, which can be shown to come from a particular time and place, separate from the earlier tales of Abraham.



(08-04-2017 08:09 AM)SeaJay Wrote:  29:05 There's a documentary called 'Patterns of Evidence: The Exodus'. Points out a lot of evidence for the exodus. They also argue the reason we don't find a lot of evidence is they are dating the exodus to the wrong kingdom. They argue it is dated to the middle kingdom not the new kingdom as traditionally dated. The claim there's no evidence has been challenged and it's not really debated now.

Which exodus? There is evidence of the exile to Babylon. There is no evidence of Egypt enslaving the entire Jewish population. There is no evidence of a nation's worth of people wandering in the desert for 40 years.

Hell, Alexander the Great managed to take his armies all over the then known world in just 11 years. He also left archaeological evidence of his passing, evidence completely lacking for a group that hovered over the area for 40 years. There should be a ton of evidence of their presence, if such a large group of people were wandering around such a relatively small area. We should expect to find evidence, as we have far more evidence for far smaller groups of people further back in time. The near complete lack of evidence is deafening.

[Image: dd47ecd8afa343d7595f1f8fb52fdbea.jpg]

The exodus from Egypt appears to be an almost complete fabrication. Remember to that Moses is mythical and didn't exist; and that is the mainstream view of biblical studies.



(08-04-2017 08:09 AM)SeaJay Wrote:  30:20 If there is no record of Israelites being in Egypt, that's because the Egyptians were known for deleting embarrassing moments from their history. This date comes from an non Christian Egyptologist's book (no info given)

And I guess the Egyptians also forgot to mention the flood of Noah because they were too embarrassed to mention being wiped out?

It's not just that Egyptians didn't write it down, they would have also had to have engaged in a massive works project to hide all passing and traces left behind by the passing Jews, and also hide that monumental endeavor for other non-Egyptian historians (like, you know, the Babylonians or the Greeks). When your best answer to explain the complete lack of evidence is 'conspiracy theory', you're off the damn reservation.



(08-04-2017 08:09 AM)SeaJay Wrote:  32:20 The accusatory claim is that again Canaanites went after other gods, but this is admitted in the Book of Judges.

You cannot cite the Bible to prove the Bible.



(08-04-2017 08:09 AM)SeaJay Wrote:  42:30 Deuteronomy being a fake? Apparently there's a big debate about this and it's not easily dismissed as fake. Not sure that that says about it though.

Traditionally seen as the words of Moses delivered before the conquest of Canaan, a broad consensus of modern scholars see its origin in traditions from Israel (the northern kingdom) brought south to the Kingdom of Judah in the wake of the Assyrian conquest of Aram (8th century BC) and then adapted to a program of nationalist reform in the time of Josiah (late 7th century BC), with the final form of the modern book emerging in the milieu of the return from the Babylonian captivity during the late 6th century BC. Many scholars see the book as reflecting the economic needs and social status of the Levite caste, who are believed to have provided its authors.

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

It's a book attributed to Moses. So yeah, it's a forgery in light of that it's attempting to pass itself off as the work of someone who never existed; and appears to be written or revised to explicitly claim such for the purpose of authoritative weight.



(08-04-2017 08:09 AM)SeaJay Wrote:  45:00 King Josiah implements aggressive reforms to promote the official worship of Yahweh as the official religion of Judah.

46:35 "Reformers also rewrote Israelite history." Guy says, if they rewrote history, how does Evid3nc3 know they were polytheists prior to this?

Studying the text itself, especially earlier versions that are different from later versions, and matching those up with the changes in language and usage seen in contemporary works in order to date the edits and revisions themselves.

The documentary hypothesis (DH) is one of three models used to explain the origins and composition of the first five books of the Bible, called collectively the Torah or Pentateuch, the other two being the supplementary hypothesis and the fragmentary hypothesis. All three agree that the Torah is not a unified work from a single author (traditionally Moses) but is made up of sources combined over many centuries by many hands. They differ on the nature of these sources and how they were combined. According to the documentary hypothesis there were four sources, each originally a separate and independent book (a "document"), joined together at various points in time by a series of editors ("redactors"). Fragmentary hypotheses see the Torah as a collection of small fragments, and supplementary hypotheses as a single core document supplemented by fragments taken from many sources.

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



(08-04-2017 08:09 AM)SeaJay Wrote:  49:01 "Where in the bible does it say Joshua was commanded to commit genocide? They just say 'oh well he was told to take over the land of the Canaanites'. Yes, because they were sinful and performing child sacrifice and other terrible things. Never because of a 'race' were they attacked."

So you mean to tell me a god who committed genocide and baby killing himself ordered his chosen people to eliminate another tribe because they too were baby killing, and just 'accidentally' genocided them?

The same god that supposedly drowned the whole world, according to the very same book?

Really? That doesn't sound like complete bullshit to you just at face value?

Here you see just how disgusting apologists get, when they're making excuses for genocide. They are trying to excuse genocide. Stop, read that again.

He is trying to make excuses to wave away genocide, as if there could ever be a sufficient reason to wipe out an entire people wholesale.



(08-04-2017 08:09 AM)SeaJay Wrote:  55:00 "How can we worship Yahweh in a foreign land?" Implying Yahweh was just a god of Judea." They reply no, they couldn't worship Yahweh because they were out of 'covenant' with Yahweh. Once taken out of the land they were taken out of the covenant. It wasn't a geographical problem, it was because they never had the temple anymore to worship in.

A distinction without a difference. If they couldn't just rebuild a replacement for the Temple outside of Judea, then they were bound by geography. He's just trying to hide that by making it bound to the Temple, ignoring that they didn't just build another one outside of Judea. They didn't precisely because they were outside of Judea, being outside Yahweh's zone of influence was the point.



(08-04-2017 08:09 AM)SeaJay Wrote:  1:00:00 All this is true because Karen Armstrong said so. There are good responses to this by Jewish scholars.

Sources?



(08-04-2017 08:09 AM)SeaJay Wrote:  I think what they are saying is yes, what's the problem here, the bible even admits to all this, and that Karen Armstrong is out there on her own and nobody agrees with her.

Sources?

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like EvolutionKills's post
08-04-2017, 11:23 AM (This post was last modified: 08-04-2017 11:34 AM by kim.)
RE: Why I Believe
SeaJay, the tools you have been given (ingrained in your mind) to get you through life, are manipulation and distraction. These are destructive tools. You have been trained to use them. Constantly.

These tools were designed to prevent you from taking full control of your own thinking processes. These tools make you an accomplice to manipulation and distraction. Using these tools, you wind up manipulating, distracting yourself.

There are constructive tools which you can use to replace destructive tools. These constructive tools are logic and reason.

Logic and reason are powerful tools.
They are powerful enough to help you do away with manipulation and distraction.
These powerful tools can help you to stop manipulating and distracting yourself. Logic and reason are a solid foundation to stand on as you go through life and continue to learn.
****

SeaJay, there is nothing wrong with you.
You are an intelligent and bright human being whose mind is instinctively rejecting the thing trying to destroy it's continued growth.

You have been complicit in the reinforcement of your own manipulation & distraction. Being provided with only inadequate tools to get you beyond a certain point of sensibility, you fight with your own mind.

This brings anxiety and fear.
****

If one dispells an entire way of living from one's mind, what is left?
Now, don't let your heart burst out of your chest or anything - it can be pretty scarey. The answer to that question
brushes your teeth and eats your food and for some reason, has some weird Spandau Ballet fetish. Dodgy Laughat

To reject faith, is to not rely on an idea, that someone else made up to control you.

Only you control you.
Heart

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like kim's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: