211 replies to this topic

[Paranoid Android]

WilliamW, on 31 May 2012 - 07:27 AM, said:

What if?
Israel has not 'withered and died' - did you get this from a church authority?   Someone who was attributed to having feed the multitude from a few loaves and fish decided to curse a tree?  

Its a story...Interesting enough that so many stories 'hide' things within for 'those who have eyes to see'  Magicians!

It is arguable that they spiritually withered.  Being a Jew in pre-Christian times was to be a member of God's chosen people.  After Jesus, being a Jew just means that you were part of the tribe from whence the Messiah came, and if they don't accept Jesus they wither and die.

Naturally, if you are a Jew you won't agree with this.  Neither will those who don't believe Jesus was the Messiah.  But it is internally consistent with the text that if Jesus was the Messiah, then Israel as the fig tree would indeed have withered, no longer producing fruit.

WilliamW, on 31 May 2012 - 08:31 PM, said:

re: "Loaves and Fishes"  I was really highlighting the irony - We are informed that Jesus is hungry that the season isn't the one were figs are fruit and instead of just saying 'my bad' he cursed the tree.  Instead of using his abilities to make things out of thin air, he remains in a mood and at the end of the day teaches his followers about 'forgiveness'.

Ironic.  (and forgivable)

You are stuck on the humour, the symbolism is about far more than Jesus being hungry or getting angry at a tree.

[Paranoid Android]

Dying Seraph, on 31 May 2012 - 06:59 PM, said:

Greetings PA. What you have stated is very much valid and should be duly noted. However, how did this random fig tree become symobolic of Israel? And When? I could be wrong but it doesn't seem to suit the original account of Jesus merely cursing the tree for not bearing fruit and in frustration cursing it. It would appear that the second more detailed account bears what you have in mind regarding the tree becoming a spirittual impication of sorts. However this appears to be added and thus the symbolism of the tree added and not original. What one may argue understandably so is that perhaps Jesus or the author of the original account had the same thing in mind. However it doesn't seem likely and thus the symbolism later attached. Granted none knows factually but tat's just the impression I am under.

If the fig tree were alone in symbolism in the Bible I'd agree.  However, the fig tree was traditionally associated with Israel (and in particular with the prosperity of Israel).  There are several passages of note, but some are more obvious than others.  1 Kings 4:25 speaks of the prosperity of Israel by suggesting that each person has a flourishing fig tree.  Joel 2:19-32 (focus on verse 22) suggests that Israel flourishes when the fig tree is producing fruit.  In the New Testament, there are several parables Jesus tells that relate to the fig tree.  Again the symbolism focuses on the ability of the tree to bear fruit.

A withered fig tree bears the symbolism of Israel's lack of prosperity.  Perhaps it refers to their physical prosperity, though I would be more inclined to argue a spiritual prosperity.  Either way, this is the obvious understanding of Jesus' actions in the context of a whole Bible approach to the fig tree and Israel's connection to it.

~ Regards,

[ZaraKitty]

You can't rationalize religion, don't even try. It's doesn't make sense. Example: Why would an all loving God allow the murder, torture and rape of his children? Why would he let mothers watch their newborns die?

[Mikko-kun]

Mr Walker, on 31 May 2012 - 12:43 PM, said:

In a world of law and justice it is not right to just let opposing factions fight it out to a terrible draw, stalemate, or even a one sided victory, when the use of overwhelming force, judiciously used, could prevent all that. The important thing is for such forces to intervene in a way and manner which allows justice and right to prevail.For example to fight for the side of equality and  freedom not inequality and  slavery.

Took my time to answer back, sorry. I think that your basic idea of intervention is not bad in itself, but the definitions and methods you allow aren't right. I claim that people are biased by nature. Of course we are capable of true objectivity, as well as capable of bypassing the subjective side of ours when it comes to action, but I'd say that we'd be less humans to not accept the subjective side in us. The good you're talking about is an universal good for most, but in some worldviews it alone isn't the "good" of things. In some views, with freedom comes responsibility and more heavily so, and true equality doesn't exist in this world if we're accurate about things, and this world is based on slavery, some are just more direct and more (openly) violent about sustaining that slavery. Going to work is a form of slavery if you're forced to do certain kind of work to survive instead of directly acquiring your basic needs by yourself.

My point is, if you look at this way, you can always see flaws in the current system, like you see flaws in the muslim system. The difference is, that I dont use those flaws as excuses to attack other nation. If you look deep enough, there's always something unjust somewhere. It's just you now who defines the unjust, and there's nothing wrong with that. But it's you forgetting that other people dont have similiar definitions of what exactly is wrong in this world, it's just you (or just a leaders of a country).

Quote

It is not politicians who fight, but ordinary people, and they wont fight for a cause that they consider wrong.

Apply this logic to WW2 Germany. They didn't see anything wrong in their fight, on the ordinary level either. Or so it seemed at that time, and it depended on who was asking and who was being asked.

History of america was different: there was a more clear moral dividence than with my country. Of course the dividence was clear here too, left and right, but who was morally or ethically right wasn't so clear as in your case maybe.

I think that you're right about there being the need for warriors and such who fight, but I think you're dearly mistaken in the sense that there's only one who can tell what's right and what's not, and in that the one doing so would be a human being. Killing is part of our animal side too, it's never an act of justice, but an act of survival. Justice is survival of both, sensible survival in that. You can remove a tumor like you can kill a seriously depraved person, but removing tumor itself doesn't remove how, where and through what it was born, and in same sense killing does not remove the depravity, just the person doing it. And killing is quite irreversable at that. I think we both have flaws in our thinking, in this sense.

[Beckys_Mom]

dside, on 01 June 2012 - 04:47 AM, said:

Galatians 5:22-23; But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

So you have nothing to offer other than random words from a man made book?   There are opposite emotions for a reason..If you believe God is the creator of all then you are in denial of all he created ..

Quote

The Bible states we're born into a state that keeps us bound to flesh and its desires, because of these desires come impure thoughts, violence, thievery, dishonesty, greed, all sorts of abuses, and even murder. You approve this because it only comes natural to you and I but God doesnt approve of this.

Why would God not approve of something he solely is responsible for creating in the first place?  You have limited his abilities and part of his creations ... Can you answer why God created human emotions of the negative kind to begin with?  Can you answer that in your own words?

Quote

   I love God and want Him to genuinely change me and make me a new creature,

I am unlike you.. I am happy with the way God made me .....I would hate to be like some drone with only one sided emotions  ...I know God has his reasons for us to have both sets of emotions...Who are we to want him to change what he created?  I call that selfish ...and I am glad I am not that selfish.. I am thankful I have my full health and able to live my life...... Emotions come and go it is part of us and I along with billions accept it..  There is no room for selfish  wants and needs.. Be thankful for the life you have...  If God has not changed you now, he never planed to.. end of

Quote

   I want Him to remove these weakenesses      

Remove them yourself.. It is called self control and will power.. He gave you the ability to use them, the ability to deal with them and make use of the will power ..  I do not get why you expect God to do all for you..  You should thank yourself lucky you do not have any serious health problems ..If your only concern is the fact we humans posses  negative emotions as well as the good.. then you have it good.. deal with it and stop expecting God to sort you out....

Quote

   Being the world's nicest most pleasant neighbor or in-law is not enough, being the world's most generous friend is not enough, until all those negative behaviors that weigh me down daily and are stumbling blocks or distract me (pull me away from God) are removed in order that that I will live a fruitful satisfying life for God.    

So, even being like Jesus is not good enough for you.. You want to be above that from reading what you just posted.. Because even Jesus  held the odd negative emotion.. He lost his temper and cracked a whip once.....He felt forsaken by the father and I am sure he felt a number of other NATURAL human emotions too.. But hey you want to be the ultimate messiah by the sounds of it.. Its no wonder God has not answered your  massive request..

There are many Christians  out there that know and accept all God gave them, and even they wouldn't sit and expect God to change them.. they know it is their own responsibility to strive to be  the best they can and  a lot of honest Christians well tell you straight - No one can be perfect..we just strive to do what we can.. You on the other hand  seem to feel that is not good enough.. you want God to do it all for you..You want God to do this for you and that, and being the best is not good enough according to your post.. I really never have read anything like that in l my life before..you are the first.. WOW... People die wanting.. that's life

Quote

  I rather be bound to God than bound to my sins where God's divine nature wont find any fertile soil to grow, Becky's Mom.   

I hate to break this to you.. but no one is perfect and never will be.. So If God has not changed you and gave you all you want now.. it's not likely going to happen..  You are meant to get on with life like everyone else and learn to deal with your emotions and feelings and strive to control them.. Not sit and debate with others as to why you want God to do all for you so you can be the ultimate sight of perfection.. bigger than Jesus...
Your posts above how being the best neighbor, most generous friend ect  is not good enough for you,  imply every part of that.. For if you think by hold a single negative emotion is not good enough   then that is  higher than Jesus ever was.. I think you look a gift horse in the mouth  and I hate to break this but ironically   you are being most selfish ...You really should just be thankful or all you have ..

Edited by Beckys_Mom, 01 June 2012 - 01:56 PM.

[ranrod]

dside, on 01 June 2012 - 05:04 AM, said:

Trials can strain one's relationship with God, trials are something that a church member should see the pastor about and ask for the congregation to pray over them. Trials can be quite unpleasant for some.

But do trials justify sin? No, but it can usually provide STRONG evidence of how destructive sin even amongst both the guilty and innocent are equally or inequally affected speaking on those elements that appear beyond one's control. One might exclaim, "what is wrong with you people?!" or look up to God in disbelief, "Why God, why?" or shake a finger at Him. Trials need prayer and strong faith and supportive fellow believers. God will see His children through the storm.

You know what else helps us through trials in the same capacity as god?  Potato chips!  Let's gather 1,000 people going through tough times and supply them with potato chips and see if the percentage of them that get through it is as high as those who pray instead.
From what you've written, no matter what circumstances happen in your life, whether it goes in favor or contradictory to your beliefs, you make excuses to keep the illusion going.  If you think about this critically you'll find that the problem is that any belief of this kind is as good as any other.  Even the belief in potato chips.

[Mr Walker]

Mikko-kun, on 01 June 2012 - 11:44 AM, said:

Took my time to answer back, sorry. I think that your basic idea of intervention is not bad in itself, but the definitions and methods you allow aren't right. I claim that people are biased by nature. Of course we are capable of true objectivity, as well as capable of bypassing the subjective side of ours when it comes to action, but I'd say that we'd be less humans to not accept the subjective side in us. The good you're talking about is an universal good for most, but in some worldviews it alone isn't the "good" of things. In some views, with freedom comes responsibility and more heavily so, and true equality doesn't exist in this world if we're accurate about things, and this world is based on slavery, some are just more direct and more (openly) violent about sustaining that slavery. Going to work is a form of slavery if you're forced to do certain kind of work to survive instead of directly acquiring your basic needs by yourself.

My point is, if you look at this way, you can always see flaws in the current system, like you see flaws in the muslim system. The difference is, that I dont use those flaws as excuses to attack other nation. If you look deep enough, there's always something unjust somewhere. It's just you now who defines the unjust, and there's nothing wrong with that. But it's you forgetting that other people dont have similiar definitions of what exactly is wrong in this world, it's just you (or just a leaders of a country).



Apply this logic to WW2 Germany. They didn't see anything wrong in their fight, on the ordinary level either. Or so it seemed at that time, and it depended on who was asking and who was being asked.

History of america was different: there was a more clear moral dividence than with my country. Of course the dividence was clear here too, left and right, but who was morally or ethically right wasn't so clear as in your case maybe.

I think that you're right about there being the need for warriors and such who fight, but I think you're dearly mistaken in the sense that there's only one who can tell what's right and what's not, and in that the one doing so would be a human being. Killing is part of our animal side too, it's never an act of justice, but an act of survival. Justice is survival of both, sensible survival in that. You can remove a tumor like you can kill a seriously depraved person, but removing tumor itself doesn't remove how, where and through what it was born, and in same sense killing does not remove the depravity, just the person doing it. And killing is quite irreversable at that. I think we both have flaws in our thinking, in this sense.

I disagree. I think people can be taught to think logically and objectively. I know they can be taught to act morally and ethically and even their basic animal instincts and drivers can be educated out of them. I think philosophy, ethics and value lines etc can be taught and applied to, and by, any functioning human.

No, there may be no universal moralities but humans are capable of working out  a line from  most harmful to least harmful, and if we are to survive we will have to begin understanding and imposing( or inculcating through education) some of those values and ethics. ANd if something is destructive and harmful to human beings, like modern slavery or the abasement of women, then those things must be stopped. Cultural diversity is not an acceptable reason to allow certain things in the modern age  such as female genital mutilation of children. It is a reasonble reason to allow women in  a democracy to wear what ever form of clothng form a bikini to a burkha they desire, as long as they have had the opportunity for a full education upon which to base their decisions and have full participation  in the democratic process and legislature that makes these decisions.

While economic and social realities can impose differnces beween peoples, we are all human beings and all deserve the same basic rights and responsibilities, That includes a right to an educaiton so that we understand our self and our world. It includes a right to protection from violence by our own nation or others. It includes the right to decide and determine our own destinies as individuals or societies  as well, as long as those choices dont harm or threaten others.

Here is one basic differnce In australia young women a re often (quite ridiculously) constrained in what they wear, by fashions and peer group pressure, but if they go outside in something unfashionable they wil not be beaten or arrested. In some countries if you want to show your face or your knees you will be either beaten or arrested . In austrlaia women can chose, or not, to drive a car or to go to school ( the cna be home schooled if they wish)Iin some countries women can do neither. They are never given that sort of choice. In some countries women cannot leave the house without father/brother/husband's permission. Is it right to allow that to continue? In some countries women die in childbirth because they are forced to have child after child. In some counries there is still no such crime as rape in a marriage.

Thes e practices occur largely because women are never allowed an education, and certainly no participation in making the laws.


Germany is not a good example.It was not (after hitler took power) a democratic country. The people had no freedom to disagree.

I take your point about modern wage slaves but really they are not slaves. They generally are free to mak e decisions about how hard and how much they want to work. If i wanted to live on a farm and provide my own needs i could do so, but the hours and conditions of work would be even harder and longe than my work as a teacher. (about 50 hours a week)

I know this because we did live on a farm for 30 years, and while we experimented with growing our own food etc. it was not as economical as working especaily when you put an hones tvalue on your hours of labour And i could buy in season food cheaper than i could grow it,  given the cost of water and other requirements such as drip irrigation systems for fruit trees

Our social structure allows me huge freedoms to work and  get rich, or to never work and still live very comfortably by world standards. I would never starve or be homeless  within australia unless by a choice, or a decision I made.

I could be a millionaire or i could live on   a couple of hundred   dollars a week given to me by the govt.. It depends on how much i am driven by materialism, and/or how happy i chose to be in second hand clothes, living in a small but modern and well equiped  seaside unit without a plasma television etc. My sisters net assets are in the tens of millions. (her house alone is about 2.5 million). My own are about half a million, my brother in law's under 20000. My sister earns several million a year i earn about a hundred thousand, my brother  in law earns a couple of hundred from the pension.

But we all enjoy the same basic quality of life. We all have flushing toilets and hot runing water. One can only drive one car, sleep in one bed and eat so much food.. We all started in the same place and position, and each of us has the wealth and lifestyle we chose,  not something which is imposed on us. I could be as "rich" as my sister or as "poor" as by brother in law, simply by applying different values and choices in my life.

Edited by Mr Walker, 01 June 2012 - 03:53 PM.

[Mikko-kun]

You can't teach anything to anyone who's not willing to listen. You can try, and you can succeed, but the success does not lie in your effort alone, it lies also in the other being's acceptance of your ways. If the acceptance is not there, it's not there. Can you force acceptance? People have chosen death, torture and brainwashing over it. You may be able to drive someone in a corner, but can you take away free will? If you can, the couldn't you also make people adopt destructive ways? You can give an idea, the other person can take it, but they can also reject it. You can pressure them, by words or by methods I said, but it's still pressuring, and it's up to the other person what to do. If the world worked some other way, then we'd be just reprogrammable machines with transmitting capabilities, right? You can make people sense things, but you can't make them make sense out of it. That why different results in school tests for everyone, this is how I believe it works, even though there's always probably finer and and unseen-to-me -mechanisms at work there too.

Freedom is relative. You say that the germans didn't have a room to disagree during the Hitler period, but if you look at it closely, they did. The alternative was just worse, and the conditions seemed to be much better for those who agreed with Hitler when he was in power. Death is always an alternative, so is leaving the place you considered home, so is abandoning those who you considered family, so is disagreeing with them. They had basically three chains of events to choose from, the ordinary folk of that time and place: agree with Hitler, silently and in shadows disagree while remaining there, or flee. Some of his countrymen may have even physically fought against him (not him directly but his plehtora of subordinates) and perished or escaped him. You say they didn't have freedom, true in a sense, but if you look at it closely, they had every freedom we had too, just different consequences. Rebels, those who go against mainstream, don't often have it easy, and that why it's not a desirable wave to ride on. All unknown and things that are different or unexplored are often being avoided or deflected, or perhaps digested more slowly.

Most people, including me, can agree that most things like depraving women, or anyone, are not acceptable. Not just in this day and age. But I think the change should occur from within, not without, because only the change that comes from within can be truly fruitful. Because the change that comes from within is more prone to change your (deeply) subjective side too. For example, I'm a fierce animal protector (yes, in real life), and I believe that more people should provide their basic needs themselves partly because of the animal torture point of view (deep bias, you could say religion in my case). I'm also not a stranger to taking life. But I would never take a life for the sake of my ideals. The ideals remain there, whether I or anyone else is dead or not. The ideals indians (native americans) held still remain in many people's hearts even if those people themselves didn't choose to spread them and preach about them, people have found them in their own ways. I have faith that even if every person's life is extinquished, they remain. I could use my ideals to do destructive things, as could anyone, and say that "it's not right you do this and this to animals", but I simply don't believe in the chain of events that allows you to kill because of ideals. This is something you could call a religion that forbids to kill because of religion. "The most immediate survival" is the only license to kill for me, and not even it, if it means taking life from something that I'd rather see living even if I die.

I suppose since you're from Australia and have some knowledge of the agriculture, you might know who Bill Mollison is. He's australian too and I think he, if anyone, could help you improve your farm's working conditions. As far as I know, he's done much of his experimenting in Australia and similiar environments (Africa, at least that's more similiar to your than my country environment ), and I've heard many promising reports. You should check his work if you still have that farm going. I didn't pay much attention to the parts in his studies that you might find interesting, but there's much about storing water, which might be one crucial point in your end of the world.

I think it's only good that you can decide for yourself what you do with your life instead of money dictating it for you, but you know that the world isn't like that under the surface. Someone has to do those things that get done. The basic necessities at least. For now it'll be the ones who need money the most that at least try to get into that loop, and those who need it the least are more free to get out of that loop. I understand the value of money as trading method, but I think it's been overused, when you get everything with it instead of by yourself. It doesn't have to be either-or, there could be some balancing done. Most of us do have those basic commodities, but many dont have so much of a choise what kind of a work they do. The factory I'm in is quite decent, but not me nor my workmates would be there if we had a choise in the matter. We're there because we were born to be money-slaves and didn't do enough about it in our lives up to this point, and because like us, other people rely on others to accommodate their basic needs. I'm not bitter, on the contrary maybe, just a bit frustrated at times, but I wish people could produce their needs easier. When it's so easy to spot "you could do this better"-things in the system, and the only thing stopping you is money (currency which is supposed to help people), property (there's no real property, we just loan everything and pass it on when we die, it's all a loan) and a complicated system of rules (that were made to help people). Or rather, people holding on to those things. And your own will to maintain a more comfortably lifestyle.

Sorry for the long rant, hehe. Off-topic too. But no matter what we deserve, it's always a different story of what we get. There will be differences in what we get, I dont think that can be changed. But we should have a choise in that matter, which most people dont have too much, and I think it's usually about not knowing that something better exists and is in your reach, or that you're not yet extending your hand for that thing even though you know it's there. My friend from asia tells me at times how things work in his country, it's pretty rough out there compared to western "civilized" environment, and I think normal people in my country would only think "that's plain stupid/primitive", or that "I can see where they could improve their way of thinking a lot", and I think you can see things in my words in similiar way. If so, I hope you voice out some of them. I think you have many good ideas.

[B Jenkins]

ranrod, on 01 June 2012 - 01:51 PM, said:

You know what else helps us through trials in the same capacity as god?  Potato chips!  Let's gather 1,000 people going through tough times and supply them with potato chips and see if the percentage of them that get through it is as high as those who pray instead.
From what you've written, no matter what circumstances happen in your life, whether it goes in favor or contradictory to your beliefs, you make excuses to keep the illusion going.  If you think about this critically you'll find that the problem is that any belief of this kind is as good as any other.  Even the belief in potato chips.

Potato chips for people that may suffered the loss of loved ones, loss of a job, loss of possessions, loss of health, loss of faith, etc?????

You misunderstood me.

[HavocWing]

ZaraKitty, on 01 June 2012 - 07:57 AM, said:

You can't rationalize religion, don't even try. It's doesn't make sense. Example: Why would an all loving God allow the murder, torture and rape of his children? Why would he let mothers watch their newborns die?

Sadism.

[ranrod]

dside, on 01 June 2012 - 06:23 PM, said:

Potato chips for people that may suffered the loss of loved ones, loss of a job, loss of possessions, loss of health, loss of faith, etc?????

You misunderstood me.

Yes, Potato chips. God works in mysterious ways...Mysteriously similar to random chance.

[Dying Seraph]

Paranoid Android, on 01 June 2012 - 07:26 AM, said:

If the fig tree were alone in symbolism in the Bible I'd agree.  However, the fig tree was traditionally associated with Israel (and in particular with the prosperity of Israel).  There are several passages of note, but some are more obvious than others.  1 Kings 4:25 speaks of the prosperity of Israel by suggesting that each person has a flourishing fig tree.  Joel 2:19-32 (focus on verse 22) suggests that Israel flourishes when the fig tree is producing fruit.  In the New Testament, there are several parables Jesus tells that relate to the fig tree.  Again the symbolism focuses on the ability of the tree to bear fruit.

A withered fig tree bears the symbolism of Israel's lack of prosperity.  Perhaps it refers to their physical prosperity, though I would be more inclined to argue a spiritual prosperity.  Either way, this is the obvious understanding of Jesus' actions in the context of a whole Bible approach to the fig tree and Israel's connection to it.

~ Regards,

Greetings PA thank you for the response. In regards to the verses you have presented. I see what you're saying and don't dispute th possibility you present. I may jsut be in a different understandign than you. And coincidently you presented the alternative stance I take for me, so conveniently.Thank you.   

I just can't help but feel that this symbolism of Jesus cursing the tree is a later account. Not only that, I am inclined to believe it didn't happen at all. That's just me. It seems odd that Jesus would walk up to a fig tree that is not in season and look for fruit to eat. One of two things since it was not in season. Either there would be no fruit or the fruit would not be ready and thus not very enjoyable to eat. So seems a waste to even approach a tree not in season expecting something and then cursing it WHEN IT"S NOT IN SEASON. It makes no sense. The account would be more beleiveable it it was perfect time for fig trees to bloom and it withered. But that is not the case.

BUT...those clever authors and editors of the Bible...If we take the account of Jesus and incorporate it with the prior verses in the BIble...the authors/editors get to convey just exactly what you wish. This spiritual symbolism you reffer to.

SINcerely,

Edited by Dying Seraph, 02 June 2012 - 12:15 AM.

[Paranoid Android]

Dying Seraph, on 02 June 2012 - 12:14 AM, said:

Greetings PA thank you for the response. In regards to the verses you have presented. I see what you're saying and don't dispute th possibility you present. I may jsut be in a different understandign than you. And coincidently you presented the alternative stance I take for me, so conveniently.Thank you.   

I just can't help but feel that this symbolism of Jesus cursing the tree is a later account. Not only that, I am inclined to believe it didn't happen at all. That's just me. It seems odd that Jesus would walk up to a fig tree that is not in season and look for fruit to eat. One of two things since it was not in season. Either there would be no fruit or the fruit would not be ready and thus not very enjoyable to eat. So seems a waste to even approach a tree not in season expecting something and then cursing it WHEN IT"S NOT IN SEASON. It makes no sense. The account would be more beleiveable it it was perfect time for fig trees to bloom and it withered. But that is not the case.

BUT...those clever authors and editors of the Bible...If we take the account of Jesus and incorporate it with the prior verses in the BIble...the authors/editors get to convey just exactly what you wish. This spiritual symbolism you reffer to.

SINcerely,

Fair enough.  I see your point.  Naturally I do not believe it was a later edit, but I can understand why you might see that.  I don't think it's as simple as Jesus walking up to a random tree and cursing it, the tree was on the Mount of Olives, if I remember off the top of my head correctly.  The Mount of Olives has its own part to play in Old Testament prophecy, which I would argue adds yet another symbolic layer to the issue.  But I respect your alternative view here

~ Regards,

[WilliamW]

ZaraKitty, on 01 June 2012 - 07:57 AM, said:

You can't rationalize religion, don't even try. It's doesn't make sense. Example: Why would an all loving God allow the murder, torture and rape of his children? Why would he let mothers watch their newborns die?

Why would a loving human bring children into a world which has murder torture and rape in it?

[Dying Seraph]

WilliamW, on 04 June 2012 - 05:15 PM, said:

Why would a loving human bring children into a world which has murder torture and rape in it?

Perhaps because of  a lack of knowledge or birth control?

Joking aside I imagine no-lovign human would bring a child into this world for those reasons. But would see the beauty of life and sharing it and creating life which is a godly act by union with one's soul mate, through the most intimate means possible. Why do our fingers have gaps in them? So our partner can fill then in with there fingers when holding hands. Small things can be heaven. If one wants to see the vile and filth...sometimes one can get so carried away that they can become dissilusioned and all one sees is the pain, anger, hate, these are things no "loving parent" would bring a child into this world for. But out of love, joy, and out of an act of nurturing.

Now as for why a selfish, ego maniancal, contemptuous human would bring a child into this world...

SINcerely,