RebornDead In reply to morqwal [2010-08-18 18:16:52 +0000 UTC]

Greetings!

It's good that you enjoy talking to people about their beliefs. Too many people find religion (and politics) to be taboo topics feel uncomfortable or volatile discussing them. I hope you can find a set that makes you comfortable and at peace.

I'm an Atheist now. You can call me an agnostic atheist if you want, but I don't find the title useful. I don't believe in a god simply because we have not met. And if he does exist, and doesn't wish to interact with me, then there's no real benefit for me to believe it's there now does it? If it does want me to believe in it so badly,it can find it's way to cause me to. As for my article, I think I cleared up what I believe in that context in the comment section.

What about you?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

morqwal In reply to RebornDead [2010-08-19 04:31:53 +0000 UTC]

i was raised mormon (christian sect) and for 14 years i was a goodie goodie. then, i had some struggles, hated some parts of my self because i thought they were bad. then around 16 i had a mentor. he opened my eyes. the dead poet's society story essentially.

then, things with proposition eight started to happen. and i was studying all religions.
well, now im what you'd call a jack mormon. not very active. im not taking myself out of the church because there's no need.

my family was very upset when i started to go "rogue" and said i decided to not go on a mission. i still take sacrament, but i don't stay for the meeting.

i tried to be an aetheist, but im just a person who likes to believe in magic and stuff, so im not an atheist, though i have 5 atheist friends, many from different religions, and a gay friend.

as for me, i am me. not anything in particular all the time. i believe in everything, because i've seen many things, felt many things, experienced many things. but no one religion seems perfect. so i don't care for organized religion for myself.
i like empirical evidence, and gut intuition. also mercy. big fan of historical Yeshua. love ghandi.
my biggest, most trusted philosophy is Taoism, pure, non-religious specific Taoism.
i also do tarot, was chosen by a beautiful Haindel deck.

i believe the mind is powerful, and i wonder if half the things that are are because people believe.

so, that's me. i try to be open and fair, though i must say i have a bigger appetite for more liberal view points than conservative. but i also see problems with liberals, so im neither. just myself.

you probably have an interesting story.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

RebornDead In reply to ReyvinVinnex [2010-04-22 04:33:58 +0000 UTC]

You're weird. O_o

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

RebornDead In reply to ReyvinVinnex [2010-01-10 02:24:26 +0000 UTC]

Noob. GTFO my dev art page and ask him yourself.

Haha.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ReyvinVinnex In reply to RebornDead [2010-01-10 12:52:02 +0000 UTC]

N/M. I got it straight from the horse's mouth.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

RebornDead In reply to Sain-Nayuakuioa [2009-07-15 20:53:12 +0000 UTC]

Thank you for writing such a moving poem.

My apologies for faving without commenting..

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

RebornDead In reply to chao-hellsing [2008-09-12 21:54:32 +0000 UTC]

Yes indeed. I don't accept comments from "HIZ! VIEW PAGE PL0x <3" crappy people. They don't deserve their name to be visible on my beautiful DA page.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

chao-hellsing In reply to RebornDead [2008-09-15 18:21:29 +0000 UTC]

Ah yes... you know, I don't think that I've ever gotten comments like that ever.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

RebornDead In reply to wazabees [2007-05-04 00:19:25 +0000 UTC]

No problem! Your cat art is wonderful. It'd be nice to view a beautiful kitty other than my own from time ti time.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

RebornDead In reply to SilentBlessing [2007-01-27 03:38:30 +0000 UTC]

Heya girl. How you been? ^_^

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

SilentBlessing In reply to RebornDead [2007-02-02 17:07:49 +0000 UTC]

I'm doing okay, I guess. How about u?

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

RebornDead In reply to ZmanzDaOnlyMan4Me [2006-10-10 20:13:52 +0000 UTC]

That's nice of you. Hello to you too.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

RebornDead In reply to Maria87 [2006-08-30 21:32:59 +0000 UTC]

Indeed. Such is life, coffee. But hey, at least you stopped by my page and left a shout, that's much appreciated. If you get to my artwork, that would be great. I hope whatever you read is a good piece representing what I usually write, and not some random piece of crap I just typed up. XD

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

RebornDead In reply to jonzoiplu [2006-07-24 21:42:45 +0000 UTC]

Huh? o_o

Ooooh... Okay.

Don't try to start a bible battle without finishing it tough. I'll show you at least 5 places where a certain kind of violence is not only acceptable, but right and justified. It's called righteous anger. Jesus did it when he not only flipped over the tables in the temple, but get this, he MADE A WHIP and "drove out" all the people in the temple with it. In other words, he beat the crap out of them.

Now is violence wrong

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

jonzoiplu In reply to RebornDead [2006-07-25 03:57:59 +0000 UTC]

okay.. that was righteous indignation. and he didn't kill them.... just beat them out.

but what about psalms 11:5 or 73:6? violence is not put in a favorable light there. and did not christ say to peter, those who use the sword shall perish by it? and yes, violence is wrong.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

RebornDead In reply to jonzoiplu [2006-07-25 15:40:26 +0000 UTC]

Who's to say dying by the sword is bad? Some people would rather die by the sword than die by cancer. Many people consider than a rather honorable death. I don't see that as a warning at all, it's just the truth. If you live by McDonalds, you will also die by McDonalds. Just the way life is.

There's a difference between acts of violence, also, and living by violence (which is not the same by living by the sword, mind you) or by loving it. To answer your quotes. People who love violence, obviously, aren't in a good mindset. I in no way "love" violence, but I do see it right at times.

Matthew 11:12 actually, "The kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force" Violent men here simply mean "forceful" men. Jesus is basically saying here, people who are more forceful, bold, violent, than you are taking a hold of the kingdom! Wake up, because they're getting it before you are! Remember when he also said in the gospel "the prostitues and tax collectors are going ahead of you?" why were they going ahead of them? Because they were violently taking a hold of the kingdom.

I'm not talking about senseless bloodshed. That's not violence, that's stupidity, or violence taken to an extreme degree of foolishness. But read all throughout Proverbs, and you'll find tons of verses that say when people deserve "the rod," in other words, to get beaten in order to learn.

My point is, there's a certain kind of violence that is necessary. It's the kind Jesus advised, the kind he used himself, and the kind that God ordered at times. It's also the kind that actively takes hold of things, instead of passively waits for them. ANY time you see a "wait" in the Bible, it's an assertive wait, not a passive "I'm going to sit around and wait for this to happen."

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

jonzoiplu In reply to RebornDead [2006-07-25 15:57:55 +0000 UTC]

okay, i generally understand you, but we should go to the word in question. consulting the ever accurate dictionary.com, here's a few definitions of violence:

Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing: crimes of violence.
The act or an instance of violent action or behavior.
Intensity or severity, as in natural phenomena; untamed force: the violence of a tornado.
Abusive or unjust exercise of power.
Abuse or injury to meaning, content, or intent: do violence to a text.
Vehemence of feeling or expression; fervor.

the third and last aren't really the definitions in question. violence is an abuse of power. not merely the execution via power. and again, 'using the rod' doesn't imply using violent force. it requires force, but not to the point of beating i don't think. yes, some go too touchy and 'oh no you can't spank' and others go to the opposite extreme. point is, don't let your kid go untaught. whether you teach through reason or a lesson of a spank without scarring them for life, that's what the point is i think.

well there are passive waits aren't there? how can you 'assertively wait'? a wait's a wait. and time is relative to man.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

RebornDead In reply to jonzoiplu [2006-07-25 17:12:28 +0000 UTC]

There are passive waits, yes, but pretty much every single verse where it says "wait upon the Lord" or something ot the matter, it means an assertive wait. Compared to a passive wait. A passive wait is where you pray for something, and then sit and "wait" for it to drop into your lap. An assertive wait is one that goes out looking, and goes on with their life instead of sitting around and waiting for it.

And actually, that third and last definition is what lines up with the Greek Bible defination/usage of Violence in the verse I referenced, which means "to force one's way- presseth." And when looking up words in accordance to use in the Bible, never look up english defenitions for the word, but the definition of the original greek, aramaic, or hebrew word that was used.

And though I agree with your meaning for the "using the rod," spanking is a type of violence, one way or another. That and some of the verses do say "beat with a rod."

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

jonzoiplu In reply to RebornDead [2006-07-25 18:27:06 +0000 UTC]

ok... understood.

well if you want to talk about the koine greek definition on 'violence', then use the greek word (and there are more than one word as usual for our english generalizations). not the english, expecting me to know you speak in a biblical context just like if i ask, are you gay? depends on the context of old english versus modern english. so don't go all semantics on me you simply asked if violence is wrong. i speak english and i've studied koine greek too. obviously that question was phrased in modern english, not in koine greek. therefore i took it in the context of such... the stigma of abuse of power.

depends on what translation right?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

RebornDead In reply to jonzoiplu [2006-07-26 18:28:33 +0000 UTC]

Not really, doesn't depend on translation, depends what the writer meant. And I didn't mean "abuse of power" violence. I mean forceful violence. In which case, is not wrong. And as you showed also, there are multiple defenitions for the english "violence." And the foreceful violence I meant, isn't wrong.

Maybe it's my fault for not putting enough contet in there. But for the most part, it's true. Senseless violence is what's wrong, but generally, violence isn't.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

jonzoiplu In reply to RebornDead [2006-07-26 20:11:18 +0000 UTC]

one word: semantics
then when do you think violence is right? i think a lot of violence is senseless. my take is that force can be okay, but an abuse of such (again a subjective take) is wrong.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

RebornDead In reply to jonzoiplu [2006-07-27 00:37:03 +0000 UTC]

Indeed. Semantics. I get caught in them constantly.

Violence is right when people are stupid and need it. XD Example of stupid people that need it: people in the temple selling crap. If Jesus can do it, and be called the perfect lamb of God, without one spot of blemish, I sure would think I could.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

jonzoiplu In reply to RebornDead [2006-07-27 00:38:49 +0000 UTC]

i think we're both caught in it right now. *wiggle*

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

RebornDead In reply to jonzoiplu [2006-07-27 00:44:25 +0000 UTC]

Apparently. Sometimes I had the english language for it's restrictions. Mm...

But seeing as I'm not fluent in any other language, we're stuck.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0