JensenZ

6 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I bet not a one of them complaining about the evils of colonialism is willing to give land they paid for back to the Maoris.

The problem is with people who justify it as some kind of moral obligation of so called "civilized" countries to impose their moralities on the rest of the world. What happened happened and there's no going back. All you need to do is stop apologizing for it and see it for what it really was - A colonial land grab that considered any indigenous people as collateral damage.

15 hours ago, Orton Rd said:

Maori killed those there before them, waged constant war tribe against tribe and were cannibals at times. Hamilton has a museum completely dedicated to these savages and you can't take photo's because it goes against their beliefs. We civilised the place and have nothing to be ashamed of, statue should have been left. What next renaming Wellington after some ghastly Maori chief?

The British didn't go to New Zealand to make the Maoris "civilized", but to grab land for settlers, at a huge cost to both sides:

The New Zealand wars:

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

At the peak of hostilities in the 1860s, 18,000 British troops, supported by artillery, cavalry and local militia, battled about 4,000 Māori warriors^[8] in what became a gross imbalance of manpower and weaponry.^[9] Although outnumbered, the Māori were able to withstand their enemy with techniques that included anti-artillery bunkers and the use of carefully placed pā, or fortified villages, that allowed them to block their enemy's advance and often inflict heavy losses, yet quickly abandon their positions without significant loss. Guerrilla-style tactics were used by both sides in later campaigns, often fought in dense bush. Over the course of the Taranaki and Waikato campaigns, the lives of about 1,800 Māori and 800 Europeans were lost,^[5] and total Māori losses over the course of all the wars may have exceeded 2,100.

It is not the job of colonial powers to interfere with the way of life of indigenous populations or force their moralities upon them. If they chose to eat their enemies after they were conquered in battle, it's their way of life and their business.

But at the end of the day, the British didn't go to New Zealand to help Maoris. They were there to grab land and do whatever it took to achieve that purpose. The Maoris were collateral damage. There was absolutely nothing altruistic about colonization.

The introduction of the British musket was responsible for the slaughter of many tribes that didn't have them.

20 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

I'm a believer and ask myself, and others, the same question. If God was here forever, then why did he wait until recent time to make the universe? Was the universe made and then God got around to putting life on earth afterwards? But maybe God doesn't experience time like we do, with our calendar, the earth's path around the sun etc. I think there is other life on other planets in other solar systems/ Maybe not life like us. Maybe we are the only ones that rebelled so much we needed Christ. What about neanderthal and Cro-magnon man? Of course they existed, but weren't like us. Did God make them to give us history? I believe that we all came from Adam and Eve, and that he made races at the Tower of Babel. If God can create a universe from his mind, surely he can do a lot more. Some do have bad experiences where God was involved, cults, abuse from parents, children dying, and they either blamed God or lost faith. Some, like Job, had everything taken away and still believed. Then there are others, like myself, that have had bad experiences that I didn't cause that made me mad at God because he didn't "do" anything, at least that I could see. Some think everything happens for a reason, and there's some truth to that, because God can see the big picture and what we think is the right way, is wrong for our future. I married a Thai, and have a daughter. Now I have to try and bring her up believing God exists and Buddha is probably in hell, as he didn't have any use for God. My wife says the same thing, especially when she's angry with me. I don't see God, where is he? Trying to change that thinking after 40 years of Buddhism isn't going to be easy, but I don't want to see my wife go to hell. When she dies, she will meet God, and then she'll understand we don't come back, reincarnated as something or someone. But then it will be too late, and her last thought will be, I should have listened to my husband.

I believe it's a mistake to try to force your beliefs on your partner. Good luck with that. My mother tried this on my father and it caused a lot of grief and divided the family. You should have given this more thought before you decided to marry a Buddhist. Did you think you could convert her?

It's also a mistake to judge your wife as being "doomed to hell" if she doesn't follow your lead. I don't believe hell is a place you go to anyway, and judging fellow humans is not your job. It's this judgemental attitude of Christians that turns people away from the very doctrine they're trying to preach.

2 hours ago, Walker88 said:

Oh jeeeez. So you've got a 'book' that proves what you need to believe. How terribly convenient.

 

Curious as to what liars and lunatics get their drivel into a book over a 400 year period that some people still believe even after science has rendered virtually everything in said book false?  Why "Two Corinthians" and not Jim Jones or L Ron Hubbard? Why Paul of Tarsus and not Paul of McCartney? Why didn't Matt or Luke tell everyone that 1600 or so years in the future a guy named James would commission a Final Editing of the supposed 'word of god'?

 

On what basis do you 'conclude' "that spirit beings live in a different dimension". Is that like Shirley MacLaine?

 

Since Francis Bacon came up with the Scientific Method, not only did human knowledge progress at an ever-accelerating pace and explain most of the mysteries lesser befuddled minds attributed to a wide variety of Skydaddies, but a strict methodology was developed for separating reality from wishful thinking and superstition.

 

I never understood the wild leap from "the Universe couldn't just spring into being" (actually, it could, and it is also here, unlike all the thousands of manufactured deities) to 'there is only one god' (It's always "mine") and you can't eat meat on Fridays or can't let women go with their faces uncovered or can't covet any neighbor's wife or goods lest one burn forever. The willful embrace of abject ignorance has not done our species any good. Science first erased the literal interpretation of everybody's "holy" books and made them figurative. Science has also erased the figurative nonsense, but many refuse to accept the reality of reality, and have a pressing need to believe something is in control and gives a hoot they exist.

 

If I had to choose---and I don't---but if some theistic belief was required by law, I'd either go with Zeus (impish, sometimes nasty and vindictive, occasionally incompetent deities that badly need endless praise and thanks---which is to say honest gods) or I'd go with teams of superior beings that take turns creating Universes and then vote on which Universe was more entertaining. There's no need for monotheism; that's just a tool to make praying easier for the scared and insecure who cannot face mortality and universal indifference.

Excuse me sir. There's no need to rant. This is philosophy, not science. We are all stating opinions, none of which can be proven in the traditional manner. You asked what God was doing before he created the Earth and I told you there is an answer, with emphasis on AN answer. You were scoffing, thinking no one has an answer. Suggesting God would be bored is suggesting he's like humans and needs to keep himself occupied as he passes the time away. It suggests very limited thought has gone into the subject.

You're mistaken if you think science has disproved the existence of God. You've made up your mind, so we will leave it there. Quora has endless debates on Evolution vs Creation so I'll give that a miss here. 

By the looks of it you're an individual that has come to this discussion only to scoff. Perhaps you had a traumatic experience with some religious cult? You seem angry. It's a common response when people discuss these subjects.

5 hours ago, sirineou said:

No i don't. To understand a post you need to take it with in the context of a conversation. 

If you follow the exchange a couple of post back,( #8182 ) "What God was doing before he created heaven (our universe) and Earth is covered in the Bible, but why must God be doing something? That's a human construct in our physical realm. We must do things because time is passing and we are aging. The reason why he created Earth is also covered.   " and a claim was made that " "This leads me to the conclusion that spirit beings (God, Satan, Angels) live in a different dimension from our physical world and universe. The concept of time doesn't exist in a dimension without decay. Time is ultimately a measure of decay. "

To which I replied :

"Didn't god create man in his own image? " Then it was replied back :

"I know the verse, but don't understand what is meant by it. " to which i replied:

"Well if man is create in gods image , why does god need legs if not to walk? "

The answer of course is ; because he exists in a plane where time exists otherwise he would not have legs, Arms, or a beard that requires time to grow.

 

 

You're just going around in circles. You think God exists in a plane where time exists because he's growing a beard because he looks exactly like man because you read "God created man in his image".

For the record, I have no idea what God looks like and he probably cannot be viewed or conceived from our dimension at all, but I don't believe he walks around on legs or has a beard growing. If you think he has a beard, you obviously think he is a man. Why would you attribute a gender to God. I don't think he has any need to reproduce.

The Bible is hard to decipher and people can debate the meaning of single texts for their lifetime, but you just go ahead and assume a literal meaning and continue on as though it is an indisputable fact.

1 hour ago, Walker88 said:

Since you're an expert on this god fella, pray tell what the heck was it doing from the beginning of time until about 13.8 billion years ago? Must have been god awful lonely, so it 'created' a few trillion galaxies, each with a trillion stars, and in one of a trillion nondescript galaxies, around one of a trillion stars in that galaxy, set up a planet that would eventually lead to a pack of sentient beings, just to praise and thank the god all the time? Is that your concept of 'faith' and existence? Seems a convoluted way to get a compliment.

What God was doing before he created heaven (our universe) and Earth is covered in the Bible, but why must God be doing something? That's a human construct in our physical realm. We must do things because time is passing and we are aging. The reason why he created Earth is also covered. I'm not going to go into it here, but you can look it up if you're interested.

This leads me to the conclusion that spirit beings (God, Satan, Angels) live in a different dimension from our physical world and universe. The concept of time doesn't exist in a dimension without decay. Time is ultimately a measure of decay. It's our physical world which decays, not the realm of spirit beings which is timeless. Earth was created with a time limit. Our universe is too large to grasp even at the speed of light and concept of infinity confounds the mind. The concept of eternal existence is impossible to grasp because we are bound to a universe that measures time. To us everything has a beginning and an end.