Do you believe in God and why

[VincentRJ]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL. One man with a chainsaw can destroy more trees than natural causes, and one man driving a bulldozer can do more damage than a million years of weather.

 

Humans evolved from a lower species, and used their brains to become monsters. If we can't treasure the planet, the source of our life, we do not deserve to inhabit it.

"LOL. One man with a chainsaw can destroy more trees than natural causes, and one man driving a bulldozer can do more damage than a million years of weather."

 

You're beginning to sound like a 'Climate Change Alarmist'. 

 

In a location with unusually benign weather for a certain period, it's true that one man with a chainsaw could destroy more trees than from natural causes in that area during that period. However, in another area, in dry conditions with windy and hot weather, a simple lightning strike could result in more loss of trees in just a few days than a man with a chainsaw could destroy in a whole lifetime.

 

Likewise, far less than a million years of changes in weather resulted in North Africa becoming the Sahara Desert. A mere 10,000 years ago, what is now the Sahara Desert, was a flourishing grassland with lots of wildlife. Nobody with a bulldozer could make such a change.

 

"Humans evolved from a lower species, and used their brains to become monsters. If we can't treasure the planet, the source of our life, we do not deserve to inhabit it."

 

There's nothing that the worst of humans do that is not already being done as a matter of course in nature. For example, a certain species of female spider will eat the male alive, after copulation, to provide food for its offspring. Even Jack the Ripper didn't eat the women he killed, although he did mutilate some of the corpses

 

If you were a cow, would you rather be dragged down and torn apart by a Lion, or would you rather be successfully stunned by a bolt gun, so you are unconscious before being torn apart in the slaughterhouse?

[Mark Nothing]

I have been implementing God and his power into my life for years. Conveniently, he is always accessible and provides excellent guidance.  Tangible profound, positive results occur with each new principle discovered and inacted into my life.

 

Believing is not the right principle for me.  I would say it is more of an accessing an infinite, all knowing power source.  Like when traveling overseas and shutting off the power and water to my condo and coming back and not having lights and shower capabilities. Learning how to access the power helps enormously.

 

The way I initially turned on God's power was by learning about the panacea of living water and implementing the practice into my life. That snowballed into actually relearning and following the 10 commandments which I had forgotten.  From there I started reading and implementing biblical concepts.  And life changed.  The dissatisfaction of pursuing false idols dissappeared, and they are an insignificant distant memory.

 

It's easy.  You can experience it if you want to. 

 

If you knew the gift of God, you would have asked him, "Give me a drink", and he would have given you living water.  John 4:10

[Chris Daley]

One of the worst thing about religious people is that they still get upset when their grandmother or when the cat dies.

 

So let me get this right you think that dead people go to a place called heaven but you are upset about it?  You disagree with God's decision right?  This straight up means you don't believe in your god.  They have every fairytale, lucky charm and emotional prop going for them and they cry like a baby.

 

If the premise of a heaven really was true none of us would be anxious, scared or cry.  We would all celebrate life.  But it's not true and the only heaven we have is on Earth as a tiny slither of light amongst infinite darkness.

Edited November 29, 2023 by Chris Daley

[ravip]

22 minutes ago, Mark Nothing said:

I have been implementing God and his power into my life for years. Conveniently, he is always accessible and provides excellent guidance.  Tangible profound, positive results occur with each new principle discovered and inacted into my life.

 

Believing is not the right principle for me.  I would say it is more of an accessing an infinite, all knowing power source.  Like when traveling overseas and shutting off the power and water to my condo and coming back and not having lights and shower capabilities. Learning how to access the power helps enormously.

 

The way I initially turned on God's power was by learning about the panacea of living water and implementing the practice into my life. That snowballed into actually relearning and following the 10 commandments which I had forgotten.  From there I started reading and implementing biblical concepts.  And life changed.  The dissatisfaction of pursuing false idols dissappeared, and they are an insignificant distant memory.

 

It's easy.  You can experience it if you want to. 

 

If you knew the gift of God, you would have asked him, "Give me a drink", and he would have given you living water.  John 4:10

You are a very lucky person - maybe one of the most rarest on this planet to experience this.

I just cant imagine why the all knowing God, the most powerful... want us weak human beings to beg of him for help when we are in trouble...  why put us in trouble in the first place?

The Gaza strip... just an example.

[Fat is a type of crazy]

39 minutes ago, Chris Daley said:

One of the worst thing about religious people is that they still get upset when their grandmother or when the cat dies.

 

So let me get this right you think that dead people go to a place called heaven but you are upset about it?  You disagree with God's decision right?  This straight up means you don't believe in your god.  They have every fairytale, lucky charm and emotional prop going for them and they cry like a baby.

 

If the premise of a heaven really was true none of us would be anxious, scared or cry.  We would all celebrate life.  But it's not true and the only heaven we have is on Earth as a tiny slither of light amongst infinite darkness.

You can believe in god without being a god i.e. not perfect but human. We all breathe and have conflicting thoughts that may make god's will difficult to fathom even if we believe.

Missing someone or something due to being separated is not necessarily disagreeing with God's will but acknowledging you will be sad to be separated for a time. 

The premise of a heaven would only lead us not to be anxious if god laid it out in front of us. His will may be that he tells us through the bible and asks that we have faith and build strength and character through that faith. We may also be anxious or cry because of life now and in the foreseeable future rather than what might come after life.

I am not a believer in christianity but I like to argue a point. 

[Woof999]

On 11/26/2023 at 10:35 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

How does it feel to believe that your existence is so devoid of meaning that it ends when the biological chariot breathes it's last? IMO that's rather sad.

 

Isn't that the wrong way around? Finite life is so full of meaning that you should make the most of every single day.

 

If my soul was eternal, through re-incarnation, heaven or whatever else, then my ~<100 years living on this planet is so insignificant in the grand scheme of things that whatever I do day to day means almost nothing.

[Sunmaster]

17 hours ago, Chris Daley said:

One of the worst thing about religious people is that they still get upset when their grandmother or when the cat dies.

 

So let me get this right you think that dead people go to a place called heaven but you are upset about it?  You disagree with God's decision right?  This straight up means you don't believe in your god.  They have every fairytale, lucky charm and emotional prop going for them and they cry like a baby.

 

If the premise of a heaven really was true none of us would be anxious, scared or cry.  We would all celebrate life.  But it's not true and the only heaven we have is on Earth as a tiny slither of light amongst infinite darkness.

Is that one of the worst things though? lol

I believe that consciousness lives on and it's just the body that breaks down. At the same time, I will grieve whenever a close person or a beloved pet passes on. 
The difference is that the grief doesn't overwhelm me and I can see it for what it is: a temporary feeling of loss. But this feeling is embedded in a much bigger "feeling" of acceptance and strength in the knowledge that whatever happens in this world, happens for a reason. 

Just because one believes, doesn't make him a saint impervious to doubt, fear, anxiety and sadness. Like everywhere, there a degrees in the realization of one's true Self.
 

[Sunmaster]

22 hours ago, Walker88 said:

What is a fact is that there is absolutely no evidence that humans are anything more than a biological machine, whose 'consciousness' is a function of biology, chemistry, and electromagnetism.

 

Watch the decline of a person with dementia and this becomes abundantly clear. The same can be observed when a person suffers a traumatic brain injury. What they were is no more. Where did they go? They went nowhere; it's only the neurons and parts of the brain that made them what they once were no longer function, so that part of who they were no longer exists.

 

It is a funny bit of delusion that a person with advanced Alzheimers, who even forgets how to swallow at the end, in the instant of death becomes everything they ever were again, all their memories and personality intact. That may well be comforting for some people, but it has zero basis in fact. And if the dead don't become what they were again, but become something new, they don't remember their previous iteration anyway. Thus, the only point belief has is that some need that comfort while alive. Some do not.

 

I accept that I am a biological machine, whose existence will end for all eternity at some point. My 'meaning' comes from my ability to enjoy this brief existence and the time and space I share with others.

 

As Sam Harris has said, the term 'atheist' is kind of silly. There is no similar term for those who don't believe in astrology, yet there is no more proof any deity is real than astrology is real.

 

Some like to scaremonger and say if I don't believe what they believe, I will suffer some sort of eternal punishment. Okay, which deity or deities are the One True one or ones? Pascal's Wager wasn't an either/or, it was a lottery ticket, because somebody could choose Jesus and then die and find out the One True God is Allah or Shiva or Thor or Zeus or Amaterasu. Choose wrong and one is plumb out of luck getting 72 virgins or drinking ale with Odin in Valhalla.

You are a conscious being, right? That's all the evidence you should ever need.

You say you are the body: "I have this body. That's all I am."
Let's see.... I(subject) have a body (object). We have 2 distinct things here. One is the material object (the body) and the other is the observer of that object (the subject). 
How can the object be the subject itself? It simply can't. 
The "I" consciousness is therefore not the body, nor the brain, which is just another object.

Maybe you mean the "I" consciousness is a product of the mind then?
"I have memories, thoughts, dreams, feelings, fears, hopes, beliefs. That's who I am".
Again, we find mental objects (dreams, fears etc) and an observer of these objects. The subject can not be the object as they are 2 distinct entities. The observer (I) is watching these objects come and go. Feelings arise and leave. Memories are formed and fade away. Beliefs can change. They are all temporary, as in your Alzheimer example. The observer however is unperturbed.

So, who or what and where is this "I" consciousness then??
If it's not the body nor the mind, where is this observer, this "I" consciousness?

 

22 hours ago, Walker88 said:

Okay, which deity or deities are the One True one or ones? Pascal's Wager wasn't an either/or, it was a lottery ticket, because somebody could choose Jesus and then die and find out the One True God is Allah or Shiva or Thor or Zeus or Amaterasu. Choose wrong and one is plumb out of luck getting 72 virgins or drinking ale with Odin in Valhalla.

I would say, don't bother with finding out which deity is right or wrong. 
The only worthwhile question you should ask yourself is "Who am I?".
All other answers are included within that one answer. 
No need for religion, deities, weird beliefs, or science for that matter. You are already equipped with consciousness and perfectly capable of answering that question without any intermediary whatsoever. 
 

[thaibeachlovers]

21 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

However, in another area, in dry conditions with windy and hot weather, a simple lightning strike could result in more loss of trees in just a few days than a man with a chainsaw could destroy in a whole lifetime.

Sometimes the trees need to be burnt so their seeds can germinate, and the trees themselves survive. All part of nature's cycle.

 

As for the bulldozers, there are millions of them all over the world, some of which are making roads through virgin forest so the human hordes can destroy them.

 

There is no excuse for humanity's destruction of the planet.

[thaibeachlovers]

18 hours ago, Woof999 said:

 

Isn't that the wrong way around? Finite life is so full of meaning that you should make the most of every single day.

 

If my soul was eternal, through re-incarnation, heaven or whatever else, then my ~<100 years living on this planet is so insignificant in the grand scheme of things that whatever I do day to day means almost nothing.

I never claimed to believe in re incarnation or that we retain our individuality after death.

[thaibeachlovers]

19 hours ago, Chris Daley said:

One of the worst thing about religious people is that they still get upset when their grandmother or when the cat dies.

 

So let me get this right you think that dead people go to a place called heaven but you are upset about it?  You disagree with God's decision right?  This straight up means you don't believe in your god.  They have every fairytale, lucky charm and emotional prop going for them and they cry like a baby.

 

If the premise of a heaven really was true none of us would be anxious, scared or cry.  We would all celebrate life.  But it's not true and the only heaven we have is on Earth as a tiny slither of light amongst infinite darkness.

LOL. we grieve for ourselves, not the one departed. They are dead so they are not grieving, are they? We are sad because we miss them in our life, not because they are dead.

[Sunmaster]

20 hours ago, Woof999 said:

 

Isn't that the wrong way around? Finite life is so full of meaning that you should make the most of every single day.

 

If my soul was eternal, through re-incarnation, heaven or whatever else, then my ~<100 years living on this planet is so insignificant in the grand scheme of things that whatever I do day to day means almost nothing.

I think that's an interesting point here. I don't have a clear idea yet, but I think it's worth exploring.

Does the belief in an eternal soul give more meaning to one's life than the belief that we are biological machines? 

A person can live a perfectly content life without the belief in a God or Divine Force. He/she is perfectly capable of enjoying a beautiful sunset or a nice evening with friends and family. 
This person will think "I am here today and gone tomorrow, so I will try to make the best of it."

The other person will look at the same sunset and the jolly gathering and equally enjoy them. 
They will think something like "I am here today and gone tomorrow. I'm so blessed to experience this. Thank you God* (*enter your preferred deity)".
The fact that I believe in consciousness surviving the death of the body and in reincarnation, doesn't mean I can afford to sit back and do nothing. I wouldn't waste a nice sunset just because I think I will see many more in future incarnations. The fact that I believe that this world is an illusion, doesn't mean I feel I can do whatever I want without repercussions. I still wake up every morning and go out there, fulfill my duties, play the game and pretend it's real.

 

It appears both can appreciate beauty and closeness. So, what's the difference?

When do we really enjoy something? When do we experience true happiness?
When we are truly in the present perhaps? That state seems to be independent on whether we believe in God or not. Right?

Now, what if we could expand that feeling to not just rare moments, but make it a constant way of life? We would have to "be in the moment" at all times, or at least most of the time.
How to do it?

I think that's where the main difference lies.
Every person, whether spiritual or not, will enjoy beauty, truth and goodness in those moments when they happen. They take us out of ourselves and put us in touch with something greater.
The difference between a spiritual person and a biological machine is perhaps the degree by which we consciously seek and experience such moments. Those moments that make us plunge in the depths of our being, reconnecting us to that which we call the Ground of All Being, the Divine, God...or whatever you want to call it.
And once you learn to enjoy all moments, even the most ordinary ones, as something special....that's when it becomes a constant state of being. 

Not sure if that answers your question. :-D

 

Edited November 30, 2023 by Sunmaster

[Sunmaster]

Just one more thing that popped in my mind.

A spiritual person (not strictly talking about religious people) recognizes that happiness is not dependent on external factors (sunsets, other people etc), but is a product of an internal attitude. It's that internal attitude or belief system that we try to sort out. Out with those beliefs that don't serve us, that hold us back, and replace them with beliefs that benefit us in a deeper, more satisfying and meaningful way.
 

[VincentRJ]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

There is no excuse for humanity's destruction of the planet.

Is there an excuse for the world-wide devastation from frequent Earthquakes, Volcanic Eruptions, Hurricanes, Cyclones, Tornadoes, Forest fires from lightning strikes, massive flooding, massive pandemics which periodically kill millions of people and hundreds of millions of other animals which we may not be aware of?

 

When damage and loss of life results from the above-mentioned events, we tend to focus only on the effects on humans and their habitats. However, the damage is far more extensive. Sometimes endangered species might become extinct, and certain pathogens might cause enormous numbers of deaths of certain species that are below our radar, and many areas which are not inhabited by humans will experience severe damage.

 

The total of all this damage, caused by natural factors, might be thousands of times greater than the amount of damage caused by humans, who are a natural product of natural evolutionary processes.
 

[mikebike]

On 11/29/2023 at 12:39 PM, thaibeachlovers said:

One man with a chainsaw can destroy more trees than natural causes, and one man driving a bulldozer can do more damage than a million years of weather.

No. He cannot. Your statement is uber absurd. Are you really that ill informed? 

[Mark Nothing]

I have been researching strategies on how to read the Bible to maximize the benefit that has been helpful. Does anyone know any good sources on how to read the Bible?

 

I have been practising with this strategy from 4 perspectives:

 

1) Literal meaning.  Read the verse and interpret it literally.

 

2) Allegorical meaning.  Look for the hidden meaning beneath the surace from the perspective of your soul.  For example Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit could mean the affects being inner turmoil due to doing what you are not supposed to and your own tree of life and the fruits wilting.

 

3) Read the verse and get the moral.

 

4) Anagogical perspective.  Relating the verse to the life to come.

 

Has anyone tried this or have recommendations on how they read the Bible?

[thaibeachlovers]

10 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Is there an excuse for the world-wide devastation from frequent Earthquakes, Volcanic Eruptions, Hurricanes, Cyclones, Tornadoes, Forest fires from lightning strikes, massive flooding, massive pandemics which periodically kill millions of people and hundreds of millions of other animals which we may not be aware of?

 

When damage and loss of life results from the above-mentioned events, we tend to focus only on the effects on humans and their habitats. However, the damage is far more extensive. Sometimes endangered species might become extinct, and certain pathogens might cause enormous numbers of deaths of certain species that are below our radar, and many areas which are not inhabited by humans will experience severe damage.

 

The total of all this damage, caused by natural factors, might be thousands of times greater than the amount of damage caused by humans, who are a natural product of natural evolutionary processes.
 

You are really pushing it and I have no idea why you seem to thank that because disasters happen in nature that it's OK for humans to wreak destruction on the planet.

 

 

humans, who are a natural product of natural evolutionary processes.

LOL. Humans ceased to be a "natural product" when they chose to use their intelligence to destroy the environment in a way they were not capable of as mere animals. Do lions make plastic to pollute the oceans?

[Sunmaster]

9 hours ago, Mark Nothing said:

I have been researching strategies on how to read the Bible to maximize the benefit that has been helpful. Does anyone know any good sources on how to read the Bible?

 

I have been practising with this strategy from 4 perspectives:

 

1) Literal meaning.  Read the verse and interpret it literally.

 

2) Allegorical meaning.  Look for the hidden meaning beneath the surace from the perspective of your soul.  For example Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit could mean the affects being inner turmoil due to doing what you are not supposed to and your own tree of life and the fruits wilting.

 

3) Read the verse and get the moral.

 

4) Anagogical perspective.  Relating the verse to the life to come.

 

Has anyone tried this or have recommendations on how they read the Bible?

 

My recommendation on how to read the bible would be....don't read the bible. 😄

Sorry, couldn't resist. 

 

Seriously though, I said it jokingly, but I still mean it.

One day you will grow out of it, still searching, still unsatisfied. What then? Will you look for another book?

[Red Phoenix]

1 hour ago, Sunmaster said:

 

My recommendation on how to read the bible would be....don't read the bible. 😄

Sorry, couldn't resist. 

 

Seriously though, I said it jokingly, but I still mean it.

One day you will grow out of it, still searching, still unsatisfied. What then? Will you look for another book?

~

Christianity is one of the cornerstones of Western esoteric tradition.  So I actually do recommend reading the Bible and getting acquainted with its content.  Especially the New Testament and the Book of Genesis contain pearls of knowledge and wisdom. 

But of course 'reading the Bible' should not be to the exclusion of any other sources of spirituality, as the message in all religions and spiritual sources is universal.  And most certainly one should not treat the Bible texts as Dogma or the One and Only Truth. 

 

 

[owl sees all]

4 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

~

Christianity is one of the cornerstones of Western esoteric tradition.  So I actually do recommend reading the Bible and getting acquainted with its content.  Especially the New Testament and the Book of Genesis contain pearls of knowledge and wisdom. 

But of course 'reading the Bible' should not be to the exclusion of any other sources of spirituality, as the message in all religions and spiritual sources is universal.  And most certainly one should not treat the Bible texts as Dogma or the One and Only Truth.

 

The Bible should be studied at higher education level in literature and history. As for its relevance in today's world. Well?! Some might say it's essential. Others say it's insignificant.

 

For me personally; God is mother earth. And religion is nature.

 

[VincentRJ]

7 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

You are really pushing it and I have no idea why you seem to thank that because disasters happen in nature that it's OK for humans to wreak destruction on the planet.

 

Okay! I'll try to explain it to you. First, I have never written that I think it is okay for humans to wreak destruction on the planet. The word 'wreak' relates to large amounts of destruction, usually resulting from anger, rage, revenge, hatred, and so on. The point I'm trying to get across is that the amount damage that has been caused to this planet, throughout its history, from natural events, has been far, far greater than any damage caused by humans.

 

The most obvious example is that extinction event which wiped out the dinosaurs around 66 million years ago, possibly caused by a single asteroid hitting the planet. It is estimated that the damage resulted in the extinction of at least 75% of all species on the planet.

 

How does that compare with the damage resulting from WW2, or the damage resulting from human-produced plastic waste in the oceans?

 

I'm not claiming that it is okay for humans to pollute the environent. I'm just presenting an objective, unbiased perspective to get things in proportion. Also, I'm not aware of any other species on our planet that is so concerned about the wellfare of the planet and the survival of other species, as certain humans are.
When the whales became close to extinction due to over-hunting, most countries created a ban on whale hunting, and the whale populations are now thriving. (Although off-shore windmills do appear to be a continuing problem that harm the whales.    )

 

Can you think of any other carnivorous species on the planet which would stop eating another species because the numbers were diminishing?

 

Whilst it's true that human activity, over the centuries, has resulted in the extinction of a number of species, due to over-hunting, landscape changes, and the introduction of invasive species such as cats and rabbits in Australia, for example, most of such extinctions are not directly caused by humans, but by the natural invasive species gobbling up the other natural species which have not had sufficient time to evolve protective strategies.

 

You might claim that it is not natural for us to cut down forests for timber resources and to create agricultural land for food, but the fact is, all forms of life have to compete and gather resources to survive and flourish. This is a natural process.

 

However, some creatures are better than others, at certain tasks. For example, humans are very good at recycling huge quantities of coal and oil that are buried deep in the ground. When we burn these fossil fuels, we recycle the Carbon Dioxide which was sequestered millions of years ago when forests thrived because of very high concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere.

 

The following study provides some amazing information. (My apologies to any 'climate alarmists" who might suffer extreme anxiety when reading this.    )

 

"From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.
An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet’s vegetated regions. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States."

https://www.nasa.gov/technology/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth-study-finds/#:~:text=Karl B.,Hille&text=From a quarter to half,Climate Change on April 25

[Sunmaster]

3 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

~

Christianity is one of the cornerstones of Western esoteric tradition.  So I actually do recommend reading the Bible and getting acquainted with its content.  Especially the New Testament and the Book of Genesis contain pearls of knowledge and wisdom. 

But of course 'reading the Bible' should not be to the exclusion of any other sources of spirituality, as the message in all religions and spiritual sources is universal.  And most certainly one should not treat the Bible texts as Dogma or the One and Only Truth. 

 

 

I feel like I should expand on my answer.

I'm not against the Bible per se. I've never read it in full, but I'm sure there are important ethical and spiritual truths to be found there. 
The problem I see is that this valuable information is mixed in with and distorted by a lot of unnecessary and confusing fluff. That's why you get questions as to 'what is the best way to read it?'. 

I then ask myself, why waste time to sift out the good parts when there are plenty of other sources that get straight to the point and are crystal clear from the get-go? 

I understand that we all have our learning paths and time needed to digest the information. 
I spent decades reading all sorts of things and exploring spirituality from all kinds of angles. If I have to be honest with myself, all it really did was to make me realize that it only fed my intellect and didn't get me closer in understanding who I really am. It's one thing to say "I am an eternal being and the universe is full of love" because you read it somewhere and you believe it. It's a completely different thing when you actually experience it and therefore know it to be true. 

This is the point I will never tire of making: one moment of direct experience trumps a lifetime of reading.

If reading the Bible brings you to practice (prayer, contemplation, fasting etc), then that's fantastic. 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

23 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Okay! I'll try to explain it to you. First, I have never written that I think it is okay for humans to wreak destruction on the planet. The word 'wreak' relates to large amounts of destruction, usually resulting from anger, rage, revenge, hatred, and so on. The point I'm trying to get across is that the amount damage that has been caused to this planet, throughout its history, from natural events, has been far, far greater than any damage caused by humans.

IMO humans hate nature as they try to destroy as much as possible of it. How much of the Brazilian rainforest survives and is not threatened with destruction so they can grow cows to provide hamburgers to Americans?

 

It's irrelevant how much has been destroyed by natural causes, as that is a cyclic thing, eg forest fires to regenerate forests, not to destroy them. Volcanoes bring new material up to regenerate the surface as it is broken down. Any species that exceeds it's ability to survive by bad behaviour eg overbreeding, is culled, except for humans which exploit even more to survive. However, nature works on a feedback system, and humanity's time is almost done. IMO covid was a trial run and the next one or the one after that will do the trick.

 

You think nature is destroying, but that is from a human's point of view, and to nature it is renewal and regeneration.

 

Extinction is a natural event, as it breeds stronger species. Only humans let the genetically weak survive, which only weakens the species as they reproduce weaker offspring.

[thaibeachlovers]

22 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

I feel like I should expand on my answer.

I'm not against the Bible per se. I've never read it in full, but I'm sure there are important ethical and spiritual truths to be found there. 
The problem I see is that this valuable information is mixed in with and distorted by a lot of unnecessary and confusing fluff. That's why you get questions as to 'what is the best way to read it?'. 

I then ask myself, why waste time to sift out the good parts when there are plenty of other sources that get straight to the point and are crystal clear from the get-go? 

I understand that we all have our learning paths and time needed to digest the information. 
I spent decades reading all sorts of things and exploring spirituality from all kinds of angles. If I have to be honest with myself, all it really did was to make me realize that it only fed my intellect and didn't get me closer in understanding who I really am. It's one thing to say "I am an eternal being and the universe is full of love" because you read it somewhere and you believe it. It's a completely different thing when you actually experience it and therefore know it to be true. 

This is the point I will never tire of making: one moment of direct experience trumps a lifetime of reading.

If reading the Bible brings you to practice (prayer, contemplation, fasting etc), then that's fantastic. 

 

Any human with a functioning conscience knows what is right and wrong.

I used to read the Bible, till I realised that only the four gospels tell the truth and the rest is either a history book or IMO irrelevant. It might be interesting to read of the Damascus moment, but it's not necessary to read of it to experience it.

[Mark Nothing]

King Solomon (700bc), the richest man in the world estimated at $2.2trillion usd,  with castles, temples and 1,000 wives discussed his life experience and lessons learned while on his deathbed and reported it in the Bible's Book of Ecclesiastes.

 

King Solomon learned most of the pursuits in life are like smoke in the wind.  Here now, gone quickly.  Including career, wealth, importance, pleasures and strivings.

 

But inviting God to enter the Temple of his soul was the most profound experience of his life. Allowing God to shower him with the fruits of the tree of life.

 

I reached the same conclusion a few years ago and figuring I had been down every other false idol path, why not God? 

 

I invite God into my soul by saying a prayer before meals asking for my food and water to be blessed by God.  I also ask for my body to be strong and healthy.  And then it happens.  With adjustments God sends me.

 

You don't have to philosophize forever if he exists or not.  Invite God in. Access him. He is waiting patiently.

 

 

[VincentRJ]

9 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

IMO humans hate nature as they try to destroy as much as possible of it. How much of the Brazilian rainforest survives and is not threatened with destruction so they can grow cows to provide hamburgers to Americans?

 

How much of the Brazilian Rainforest survives? A search on the internet reveals that 'In just 50 years, almost 20 percent of the Amazon rainforest has been destroyed.' The Brazilian Rainforest is about 60% of the Amazon.

 

A study from NASA that I mentioned in a previous post, has observed that during a shorter period of just 35 years the increase in leaves on plants and trees is equivalent to an area which is two times the area of the continental United States.

 

The Amazon Rainforest is 6.7 million km².  20% of 6.7 million is 1.34 million km2. Twice the area of the continental US is 16.16 million km².  Therefore, increased CO2 emissions, during the past 35 years, which are mainly due to human activities, have resulted in an increased greening of the the planet equivalent to 12 times the area which has been lost in the Amazon during the past 50 years.

 

Here's the link again to the NASA article.

https://www.nasa.gov/technology/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth-study-finds/#:~:text=Karl B.,Hille&text=From a quarter to half,Climate Change on April 25

 

"From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide
The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States."
 

[Sunmaster]

47 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

How much of the Brazilian Rainforest survives? A search on the internet reveals that 'In just 50 years, almost 20 percent of the Amazon rainforest has been destroyed.' The Brazilian Rainforest is about 60% of the Amazon.

 

A study from NASA that I mentioned in a previous post, has observed that during a shorter period of just 35 years the increase in leaves on plants and trees is equivalent to an area which is two times the area of the continental United States.

 

The Amazon Rainforest is 6.7 million km².  20% of 6.7 million is 1.34 million km2. Twice the area of the continental US is 16.16 million km².  Therefore, increased CO2 emissions, during the past 35 years, which are mainly due to human activities, have resulted in an increased greening of the the planet equivalent to 12 times the area which has been lost in the Amazon during the past 50 years.

 

Here's the link again to the NASA article.

https://www.nasa.gov/technology/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth-study-finds/#:~:text=Karl B.,Hille&text=From a quarter to half,Climate Change on April 25

 

"From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide
The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States."
 

Interesting 👍

[VincentRJ]

7 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

Interesting 👍

Well, I'm pleased that at least someone finds it interesting. 

 

A relevant point here is that there are usually many sides to any issue, some of which have positive attributes, and some of which have negative attributes. If one wishes to be objective and impartial, one should consider all attributes and related consequences. And that principle should also apply to religious beliefs.

[thaibeachlovers]

9 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

"From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide
The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States."

Soooo. lets keep polluting then......................

 

Given I consider the increase in CO2 only partially due to human activity, I don't actually care about CO2 levels, but I do care that humans destroy so much of nature, and pollute the oceans with plastic ( which kills aquatic life ) and toxins, when there is no excuse for doing so.

There is a plague on the planet and it's name is humanity.

[thaibeachlovers]

9 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

How much of the Brazilian Rainforest survives? A search on the internet reveals that 'In just 50 years, almost 20 percent of the Amazon rainforest has been destroyed.' The Brazilian Rainforest is about 60% of the Amazon.

It only survives because humans are unable to destroy it all so far, but they are doing it as fast as they can.

After all, Americans need their hamburgers so much more than the planet needs trees, don't they?