Showing posts with label jesus. Show all posts
Showing posts with label jesus. Show all posts

Thursday, November 10, 2011

Elucidation on "What is a Human" and the Bible

With respect to my  What Is A Human commentary (see text below), Scott wrote:


****

Bob,

Respectfully, you are entitled to your opinion, however until you or anyone else in this world can create the living and breathing things we have in the world , God is still God and his word stands true. The reason the world is in the mess it is in is because man wants to put his spin on Godly issues. 

Humbly,

Scott
****


I do my best to answer Scott fairly:


Dear Scott:


LIVING?  BREATHING?  Well, I guess you just made my point, Scott.  If a genetic entity doesn’t live and breathe, we cannot rightly call it “human” can we?
Moreover, as I pointed out in my comments, a human does not merely breathe.  It must also enjoy sentience, and demonstrate personality – show self-awareness, and at least the incipient ability to make moral decisions, communicate ideals with other persons, love other persons, and crave to know God.  These incipient abilities do not exist in certain sub-humans like the worst with Down syndrome, and they most likely will not survive to attain any level of Heaven.  When they die they will have no more chance of going to Heaven than dogs have, and so we should not consider them “human.”  Because of that and the fact that normal people will abuse them unless protected, they will become a net burden on society forever, and they represent a danger to society, women pregnant with them should abort them in every instance.
If we attach undue moral significance to aborting subhumans, we will also attach undue moral significance to preventing conception of subhumans and defective, degenerate, inferior types, such as the 85 million people in America with IQ below 85.  Such people will never graduate from high school.  They become victims of nearly all smarter people.  They make notoriously bad decisions and gravitate to crime and welfare abuse to get by.  They terribly burden society’s infrastructures related to welfare, education, housing, health care, and criminal justice.  They dramatically reduce the GNP both by burdening infrastructures and having low value of productivity.
If indeed a millennium ever arrives (as in the Bible's book of Revelations) such people will obviously not survive to experience it because of their tendency toward indigence, irresponsibility, lifelong dependence on others for subsistence, and crime.  Sooner or later, all enlightened societies get rid of them through abortion, and through sterilization of the stupid and inferior so such prospective parents cannot procreate similarly feckless innocents.

Word of God?

You mentioned God’s word.  WHAT word?  According to whom?  213 years ago Thomas Paine began publishing his Age of Reason volumes in which he cited the Bible’s own statements to prove its errancy, fallibility, and contradictions, and to refute its authenticity, showing it as a collection of spurious works by a wide array of unknown authors.
Furthermore, any reader can clearly see that much of the bible consists either of letters with either unknown or unreliable authorship based on ZERO divine authority, or of the secular history of the Hebrews/Jews which ought to stand alone, apart, and separate from purported religious or inspirational writings.  And as you well know, part of the Bible, the Song of Solomon in particular, consists of ancient prurient or erotic literature, the "porn” of that day.  You can hardly consider this as rightly belonging to the so-called Word of God.  And hey, even Jesus complained that nobody could live up to all of the Jewish laws, so how COULD they have such merit as to warrant our adherence?
I do not mean by my comments to insinuate that the Bible does not provide spiritually inspirational content or relevant moral guidance.  I mean to assert that
·         we ought to view it as a banquet feast with a table containing food prepared by primitive chefs ignorant of man’s nutritional needs, as well as by modern chefs and nutritionists.  We ought to know better than to eat cave-man food or eat the plates, silverware, tablecloth, and centerpiece. 
·         We ought to know that as a historical work it reveals the evolution of the concept of God among primitive people, not the evolution of God himself.  For example
o   early Hebrews saw Yaweh as their vengeful, jealous, tribal deity among other less powerful deities,
o   later Hebrews saw him as the ONLY God,
o   still later Hebrew prophets like the Isaiahs saw him as a God of love,  and
o   Jesus of Nazareth boldly proclaimed him as our loving, wise Heavenly Father whom we should love and emulate, a reality that neither Jews nor Muslims nor fundamentalist Christians have yet fully grasped.
We have stood by while ancient and modern preacher/teachers have perverted and polluted the beautiful Gospel of the Kingdom of God that Jesus of Nazareth both taught and lived.  We have idly or supportively watched today’s preachers browbeat children into accepting Jesus as a savior through his crucifixion as a human sacrifice to appease God so that God might willingly forgive his earthly children of their petty sins, even though Jesus himself never taught such an illogical and wretched notion about God’s relationship with his children.  We now bear the cross of reforming Christianity so that it will abandon such nonsense and return to the real gospel of Jesus, which I shall recite in a nutshell for you because I know you don’t know it.  I do this because I know you probably believe the red words of Jesus in the Bible BEFORE you believe anything else in it, and you probably accept him as the ultimate authority on the Gospel, above everyone else, including Saul/Paul.

The Real Gospel

Jesus taught that every faith-son of God will, by embracing sonship with God, strive to show his wise and loving nature to others through sincere daily living – pursuit of truth, beauty, and goodness through love, mercy, and ministry to others.  He asserted this in the following tenets of the Gospel:
1.       Fatherhood of God.  Acceptance of the reality of the sovereignty of God – he is our Heavenly Father, he loves us, we are his children, and we ought to love and spiritually emulate him;
2.      Brotherhood of Man.  Belief in the truth of the brotherhood of man – we are the brothers and sisters of our fellow humans and others of God’s willed creatures, and we should love and forgive them, and serve them unselfishly and lovingly;
3.      Becoming like God.  Faith in the effectiveness of the supreme human desire to do the will of our Heavenly Father – to become LIKE him through sincere, moment-by-moment striving to do what we consider most right.

The Great Commission

Scott, I encourage you to share these saving truths with others as I do and as Jesus commanded his followers to do, for these constitute the real “Word of God.”
I do appreciate your response to my comments, for it shows that you have deep feelings about the issues.  I did not respond to you on the Lawmen group because I made my message a little religious, and it might seem that I hold Christianity in disdain, which I do not.  I merely expect all Christians to take seriously and sincerely the messages in Jesus’ life and teachings, even though they get the story from a source long and widely known to contain errors, editorializations, contradictions, and false credentials.


Bob Hurt
 ***********************  For Reference, the source article **********

Proponents of Mississippi’s 8 Nov 2011 ballot measure “Proposition 26” seek to define the term person to “include every human being from the moment of fertilization.”  The proposition impacts a pregnant woman’s access to health care, including abortion. The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists released an opposition statement calling the proposition “vague and overly broad”.

I don’t believe personhood begins till the Heavenly Father bestows the personality upon the child, whether that happens in our out of the womb.  I believe the seven
adjutant mind spirits must first become functional in the mind so that personality bestowal will have meaning and function.  The spirits go by the names


  • intuition,
  • understanding,
  • courage,
  • knowledge,
  • counsel,
  • worship, and
  • wisdom

Personality has qualities including


  • Self-consciousness – awareness of awareness,
  • Ability to exercise moral will – to choose between right and wrong,
  • Ability to communicate thoughts, ideas, and ideals to other persons,
  • Ability to desire to do good to others – to love, and
  • Ability to crave to know God and to grow to know him,

I do not know how much of the brain must function, nor in what way, before the adjutant mind spirits can function in association with it.  I imagine it must become sufficiently developed for the baby to seek nourishment before the Father bestows personality upon the genetic entity.
The typical child does not exercise moral will (begin to exhibit wisdom) until the fifth year of life.  So, I don’t believe minimal personhood requires full exercise of the prerogatives of personality.  Since premature babies can survive with care and nourishment, I believe it safe to say that a baby does not have to experience natural birth in order to become human. 

However, if a baby cannot survive outside the womb at some age with personality prerogatives intact, regardless of the care given, and become a normal human, then that baby does not have the requisite characteristics of a human being with real personality.  And, neither government nor people should not seek to keep it alive if the mother dies while pregnant. Nor should government confer personhood status on such an entity.

I believe we should exercise common sense in determining when human life starts, such as by the above factors.  I do not believe conception constitutes the beginning of human life, nor that a human zygote or embryo constitutes a “human.”






Bob Hurt    bh  Blogs 1 2 3 Email Law Donate    f      t 
2460 Persian Drive #70, Clearwater, Florida 33763 •727 669 5511

***

Saturday, February 05, 2011

Why God Likes Obama's Military Homo Plan


Regarding "Chaps'," the former chaplain's message at the web site http://prayinjesusname.org, which condemns Obama's effort to terminate the "don't ask, don't tell" military policy regarding homosexuality...

Many factors lean common sense toward utterly ignoring people's sexual preferences, in or out of the military, so long as they don't alienate others around them. I intend to reveal and discuss some of those factors.

The Bible and what God wants

I imagine Chaps took his main cues and clues regarding religion and sex from the Holy Bible. It doesn't matter which version.

And that right there makes the point better than all our elocution about this topic. Version, like a non-unanimous Supreme Court opinion, means the truth jury has not returned with a verdict, and probably won't. Oh, we can choose one version or viewpoint or the other, but we simply cannot know whether we have chosen the right one. We cannot even know whether we made our selection from the right RANGE of choices.

Speaking of which, if you have read Thomas Paine's Age of Reason, and if you have followed his logic, you know without question that the Bible impeaches its own credentials. We cannot have certainty, for example, that Moses wrote the Pentateuch because, among other reasons, the author wrote about Moses' funeral. Moses certainly could not have authored that. If our whole reason for accepting the Pentateuch as the "Word of God" lies in the fact that Moses, chosen by God, authored the Pentateuch, then we have lost our reason for believing the whole Holy Bible is the Word of God at all.

And if you have noticed the ambivalence about the nature of God in the Bible, you cannot help suffering confusion. The early Hebrews saw him as a tribal deity better than other tribes' deities, later Hebrews saw him as the only deity, but an intrinsically evil, hateful, vengeful deity who, for example, ordered Saul to murder all the people and livestock in the Amelakite village, and who ordered Joshua to sweep into Palestine and pillage, loot, and murder the occupants, and who ordered men to stay awy from women during menstruation, and who apparently condoned Lot having sex with his two kinswomen, and ordered the murder of homosexuals. Later, Isaiah revealed God's loving nature, and yet later, Jesus revealed God's fatherly nature, a nature that Islam and Judaism have not yet fully recognized or realized.

Which God shall we honor and believe in? The fire-starting rape-encouraging, murder-condoning, jealous, vindictive tribal Yaweh of Horeb, or the loving Heavenly Father of Jesus?

How can anyone possibly find cohesion, consistency, or plausibility in all those characterizations of God? One cannot, and remain honest and sincere at the same time. Thus, the fog begins to lift, and we finally see the light of truth. The Bible reveals the EVOLUTION of the CONCEPT of God in the mind of primitive, superstitious, corrupt human beings. It does not reveal the changing nature of God. We must assume that any worthy god has a consistently loving nature, the very nature Jesus revealed in his life and teachings.

Thus, all the hateful denunciation of people in the Old Testament for pursuing pleasure through sex with other creatures, or even by one's self, amount to just so much moralistic malarkey. Bottom line (get used to it), God loves you regardless of whom you fuck.

How do we know this? Well, for some simple examples, consider these Bible excerpts:
  • Matthew 6:14-15 - For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.
  • Luke 10:25-28 - On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?” He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’” “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”
  • John 13:34-35 - “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”
  • Matthew 5:19 - Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands [the sermon on the mount in Matthew 5:3-14] and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Clearly, according to Jesus, salvation comes as a natural consequence of forgiving the sins of others, loving God, and loving other people. One has a high status by living and teaching others the precepts in the sermon on the mount which exemplify the foregoing principles. Notice the conspicuous absence of any proscription against reciprocating sexual pleasure, a natural means of expressing one's love.

Has any authority higher than Jesus ever walked this earth and brought a message to us directly from the Father himself?  Not that I know of.  So we might want to start heeding the above scriptures.  Apparently Obama intends to in this one issue.

The Pressing Personal and Social Need

FURTHERMORE, people cannot help their sexual yearnings. I believe people become homosexual because of brain anomalies. Others believe homosexuality comes from some kind of neurosis, psychosis, chemical imbalance, or social conditioning. I don't believe the cause of homosexuality matters. Why? Because people feel inexorably, irresistibly attracted by and driven to certain other creatures for the pursuit of sexual gratification, and they typically only choose a target different from the one they prefer because they don't have their preferred target available.

Among Semites the custom of selling women to suitors made women largely unavailable to impoverished men. So men turned to boys and other men for sexual gratification, as a matter of social custom. I can only presume that women likewise gave and received sexual pleasure with other women. The same happens in prisons - men choose other men for sex partners largely they have no access to women for that pleasure pursuit. This has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality.

Moreover, contraceptives did not exist In Moses' and Jesus' days. Nothing but abstinence could prevent unwanted pregnancies and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Therefore, abstinence became a moral imperative, EXCEPT when one did not risk pregnancy. Thus, the Bible handed down to us that moral imperative, also a community imperative of refraining from sex till married.

Look around you and you will clearly see the absurdity of such a notion these days. YOUNG teenagers, we often find, readily engage one another sexually because a) they feel the physiological urge, b) they want to emotionally and intellectually, and c) it has become socially acceptable in most circles. Why shouldn't it when they see it on TV and in the movies so much? Why shouldn't they when their parents and so many others around them do it? And why shouldn't they when it constitutes an expression of HUMAN NATURE to give and receive sexual pleasure with an attractive prospective partner?

WHAT should hold people back from such expressions? A Bible that contains antiquated, inconsistent, implausible, impractical, psychologically problematic religious and moral lessons? Not likely.

Our western societies have, largely because of the Bible's influence, hopelessly conflated morality with religion. Preachers encourage the conflation to make people feel guilty and penitent for enjoying a robust sex life with a variety of other partners, as though God somehow does not approve.

The Complication of God's Intention

Clearly, God intended us to have a robust sex life, or he would not have built into us such a craving for it. Thus, to discourage it seems incongruent with God's actual intentions. In other words, he WANTS us to have sex with one another, TO OUR HEARTS' CONTENT. He just does not want us to have serious complications and troubles as a result, like unwanted pregnancies, STDs, broken homes, and so on.

So what should we do about all of those complications that prevail? Well, we should not denounce sex, because preachers have tried that for millennia and it simply does not work. Nor does it make an iota of sense, for it worsens quality of life while solving no problem.

We should do something practical that eases the stress of pleasure pursuits so that those do not interfere with other ambitions in life, like earning a living, creating and maintaining families, and rearing children to become healthy, strong, humane, and productive. And, of course, becoming more like God - developing majestic and well-balanced personalities.

The Only Practical Solution

I propose that American society put an omni-gender "pleasure palace" in every community and on every military base and every Navy ship. Society should make socially acceptable and fully legal the pursuit of pleasure, including sex, in those pleasure palaces. Society should encourage those who wish to volunteer for a season in service there to learn the practice of sexually satisfying a partner. Sexually aware children might even avail themselves of the services rather than "experiment in the hayloft." I would have loved it if my parents had sent me on regular outings to the Pleasure Palace as a young teen. Marriage partners could encourage their mates to avail themselves of the services. All could use the services or volunteer for service without social stigma or legal repercussion.

Surely, this Andy-Rooney-style suggestion horrifies hard-core bible-bound Christians and Muslims. Eventually, they will have to "get over it" Why? Because:
  1. Pursuit of sexual gratification "is here to stay."
  2. Pleasure palaces address and solve an array of pressing moral, legal, and social problems.


The Solution's Amazing Bounty of Benefits

The solution provides numerous benefits.

  1. It gives people pleasure they otherwise could not morally, legally, or ethically obtain.
  2. It increases longevity of marriages by removing sexual pleasure as the reason for marrying.
  3. It keeps people from using deception to lure others into sexual involvements.
  4. It eliminates guilt associated with sex, making people feel better about their own morality.
  5. It reduces incest and associated problems in families.
  6. It dramatically reduces unwanted pregnancies and STDs.
  7. It reduces the burden on criminal justice systems.
  8. It virtually eliminates sexual predators from society, aside from the psychosis rapists suffer.
  9. It allows government to raise revenue by taxing the usage of the services.
  10. It provides an honorable avenue for earning money for those who want to work in the facility rather than merely volunteer.
  11. It gives volunteers and workers there experiences valuable to their marriages, both by avoiding boredom from sex with a spouse, and by encouraging more versatility in spousal sex, to keep marriages flourishing.
  12. It eliminates the social stigma and revulsion against homosexuality.
  13. And let us not forget the best benefit of all. It pleases God to see his children put their sex organs to good use without causing the terrible moral, legal, and ethical problems of the past.


Summary and Conclusion

The bible contains a mishmash of ancient proscriptions of the one free irresistible urge for physical pleasure virtually everyone can gratify alone or with one or more partners. It does so out of practical necessity - prevention of disease and unwanted pregnancy. In order to give proscriptions moral force, religious leaders claimed "It's wrong and God doesn't like your doing it with anyone but your spouse, and then only to make babies". It included homosexuality and bestiality in its proscription dragnet for no obviously beneficial reason.

People have always intuitively ignored the proscription when they could get away with it. The proscription makes no sense in modern times because people can easily prevent unwanted pregnancies and STD's if they want to. Furthermore, logical analysis reveals that the bible's proscriptions against sex have no real religious basis. Obviously, God wants people to enjoy sex, or he wouldn't have built humans to lust and yearn for it.

I have proposed socially and legally acceptable community pleasure palaces and voluntary and paid service in them as the solution. I have shown numerous benefits to the change in laws and morality needed to support them. I have elucidated no drawbacks because I see none.

Modern preachers need to realize that the proscription they teach against sexual expression has confused and annoyed society for thousands of years. It has given their flocks the wrong idea about God, and made him seem unnecessarily cruel.

So, preachers need to stop telling people that God does not want people to have sex with anyone but a spouse when such a proscription obviously has no basis in truth or fact. Preachers need to STOP HARASSING homosexuals, prostitutes, and the sexually promiscuous.

Bottom line, preachers, chaplains, Imams, and other religious leaders need to encourage the construction of pleasure palaces in every community, on every military base, and on every Navy ship. Then, they need to exhort people to pursue sexual pleasures in pleasure palaces when they have no mate or when the mate "has a headache."

They should encourage prospective and actual couples to discuss this matter and state their expectations, needs, and what behaviors will cause a breakup. They should discourage couples from marrying for the sexual pleasure.

I predict the emergence of Pleasure Palaces in communities around the world. I doubt that it will happen until long after I have achieved terrestrial escape.


By the way, I welcome your comments, questions, rationalizations, admonitions, condemnations, denunciations, reproofs, rebuttals, rebukes, exhortations, edifications, and refutations. However, I adjure you against calumny.
--

* *************************************************
Bob Hurt - Home Page - +1 (727) 669-5511
2460 Persian Drive #70 - Clearwater, FL 33763
Donate to my Law Studies
Stay up to date: Subscribe to Lawmen E-Letter Now
*************************************************

Thursday, November 12, 2009

Proof that Islamic Law Supports the Gospel of Jesus


But How will you teach that gospel to them?

Folks, the other day somebody sent me a Youtube link to Obama referring on various occasions to the “Holy Qur’an,” Islam, and Muslims. The video seemed to seek to prejudice people against Obama because of his adoration of Islam and identification with Muslims. We should feel no surprise at Obama’s affinity for Islam, for he spent his youth as a Muslim.

Christians typically feel disdain for Islam and Muslims because of the widely known Shi-ite jihadist efforts, terrorist in nature, such as the 9-11 destructions and many preceding terrorist atrocities.

It scares most Americans half to death to think that Muslims want to impose Islamic law on America.

Shari’a – Islamic Law

Islamic teachings encourage faithful adherents to worship God. The Qur’an, the ultimate source of Islamic law (Shari’a), also encourages social regulation, a domination of civil law by Muslim clerics. Unfortunately, clerics don’t agree much on Islamic law, arguing worse than the U.S. Supreme Court about its meaning and application. And Shar’ia doesn’t depend solely on the central holy book of Islam, the Qur’an (recital of Muhammad about Gabriel’s revelation to him) alone, but also upon writings about Muhammad and his comments by other authors. So, it can get confusing.

But maybe it won’t seem so fearsome to know that the Qur’an pronounces devout Christians and practicing Jews (“People of the book”) as Muslims, with some conditions. As you know Islam means “submission” to God, and Muslim “one who submits” to the will of God. Surely Christians and Jews can see themselves as Muslims according those definitions, since they do claim to submit to the will of God. They do, don’t they?

Put your finger on the law

But you know me. I always want to “put my finger on the law” as Richard Cornforth has taught pro se litigation trainees for many years. And so, I have dug up for you the law in the Qur’an whereby Muhammad tells Muslims of all kinds that they had better believe the gospel of Jesus, OR ELSE they will suffer “painful retribution in this world, and in the Hereafter.”

Excerpts from the Holy Qur’an

I have provided two translations of Surah 3.055-057 for your reference, you can download the whole book in pdf form here if you want to study the matter in depth.

Qur’an Translation by Dr. Rashad Kalifa

003:055 Thus, GOD said, "O Jesus, I am terminating your life, raising you to Me, and ridding you of the disbelievers. I will exalt those who follow you above those who disbelieve, till the Day of Resurrection. Then to Me is the ultimate destiny of all of you, then I will judge among you regarding your disputes.

003:056 "As for those who disbelieve, I will commit them to painful retribution in this world, and in the Hereafter. They will have no helpers."

003:057 As for those who believe and lead a righteous life, He will fully recompense them. GOD does not love the unjust.

Qur’an Translation by E. H. Palmer

When God said, "O Jesus! I will make Thee die and take Thee up again to me and will clear thee of those who misbelieve, and will make those who follow thee above those who misbelieve, at the day of judgment, then to me is your return. I will decide between you concerning that wherein ye disagree. And as for those who misbelieve, I will punish them with grievous punishment in this world and the next, and they shall have none to help them." But as for those who believe and do what is right, He will pay them their reward, for God loves not the unjust.

What does all this mean?

It means that you have proof that Muslims should obey the teachings of Jesus as a matter of LAW, not as a matter of whim, convenience, or religious preference. You see, Christians feel powerfully about their Jesus-related beliefs, but they know better, in recent years, than to shove those beliefs too rigorously onto others. I mean, you can hardly find a hard core Baptist preacher any more who slams his flock with hellfire and damnation from the pulpit.

Muslims, however, believe the Qur’an is the basis for Islamic law, and that some provisions have a mandatory nature. You could consider anything promising “painful retribution” now and in the hereafter somewhate mandatory. If Muslims want to establish Shari’a in America, they will have to obey the teachings of Jesus, as rule number one.

Well of course that won’t have such a great effect all at once because you know how well Christians obeyed Jesus during the Crusades in 1100, and again during the Inquisition in 1400, and in the witchhunts in America and Europe in 1600.

But it does constitute a pretty good start, doesn’t it?

Now, if we can only get them to admit what Jesus taught specifically in his gospel…

Say, how well do YOU know what he taught in his gospel? If you don’t know, how will you show and tell your fellow Muslims. How, then, will THEY know, and how can they OBEY THAT LAW?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bob Hurt
2460 Persian Drive #70
Clearwater, FL 33763
+1 (727) 669-5511
Donate to my
Law Scholarship fund
Learn civil litigation with
Jurisdictionary
Subscribe to
Lawmen Newsletter FREE
Download
Files FREE from the Lawmen Archive
Improve your financial fortunes with
GetZooks!
Save Fuel

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------