The one single most important message I got from what people have written about Jesus has been of love for fellow people. It has been misinterpretations of what carried that message that makes the messes.
Orwellian use of language: mom pleads guilty in cult starvation death
- Thread starter Scott Free
- Start date
Gilbert, I'd like to agree with you, and Jesus did say about loving fellow people. But what about this - "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her motherinlaw".
How does this fit into a doctrine of love? Isn't this quite opposite to love?
As I said before, the thing is full of contradictions, vagueries, and amiguities. One has to study the contexts that each comment is a part of. It is THERE where we seem to fail in understanding the stuff.
Personally I find it simply easier to live n let live and bypass the close and careful scrutiny of the scriptures to discover their meanings, hidden and otherwise.
Personally I find it simply easier to live n let live and bypass the close and careful scrutiny of the scriptures to discover their meanings, hidden and otherwise.
Do you mean, that you live according to something that you do not even try to understand?
No. I have my own "religion" and more or less stick to it. It requires very little interpretation. I sure don't need to figure out all the little nuances contained in holy books.
The only true holy book is the book of your own life. Written words can only give us someone else's opinions. The only wisdom we can garner in life comes from our experiences, not from books.
As Allen Watts said, books and teachings are only fingers pointing the way, but most people think that the finger is the truth and suck it for sustenance instead of going in the direction that they are pointing.
I wrote once that the bible can be compared to mother's breast. People seek comfort and spiritual nourishment at the breast (bible) but cling to it in fear that by letting go they will fall into the abyss. But a baby will eventually let go and experience solid food and a greater view of reality. But many adults will cling to the breast and never move on.
To me, trying to get spiritual nourishment from a 2000 year old book is like trying to suck milk from the breast of a woman who has been dead that long.
As Allen Watts said, books and teachings are only fingers pointing the way, but most people think that the finger is the truth and suck it for sustenance instead of going in the direction that they are pointing.
I wrote once that the bible can be compared to mother's breast. People seek comfort and spiritual nourishment at the breast (bible) but cling to it in fear that by letting go they will fall into the abyss. But a baby will eventually let go and experience solid food and a greater view of reality. But many adults will cling to the breast and never move on.
To me, trying to get spiritual nourishment from a 2000 year old book is like trying to suck milk from the breast of a woman who has been dead that long.
I wonder what 2000 year old powdered milk would be like? Probably as palatable as dust.
You could read any book and do something bad. The books don't make you do it. At some point, you have to take responsibility for your own actions. Religion didn't make that woman starve her child. She was not powerless. She was stupid and gullible and weak willed.
Perhaps he knew that creating a new way would bring tension. When the newer generation rejects the older generations ways, many in the older generations feel personally rejected. I personally think the quote was one way of saying that Jesus was upsetting the apple cart and he knew it. Mind you, I don't believe the bible quotes Jesus word for word as it was written long after he died so I have a tough time picking out individual quotations and tend to look at it in an overall context.
Wait a minute!!!
But you accuse me:
Wow, Cannuck, that's really hysterical. :lol::lol::lol:
But you accuse me:
Wow, Cannuck, that's really hysterical. :lol::lol::lol:
Last edited:
The woman is only just one specific example. But when you put all of the specific examples together, and they are all more or less alike, doesn't it make you want to ask questions?
Yes, I accuse you of having an agenda. What's hysterical about that? That's the difference between us.
What specific examples are you speaking of? There are very few mothers who murder their children.
It is a good chuckle, isn't it? "When I simplify something it's ok. But it isn't ok when you do it". lmao
Cool pic, BTW
I haven't posted in a good while here at CC, and wanted to 'multi-quote' but the function doesn't seem to be working, or, what is probably more correct, as usual, is that I have not understood the functions, it all seems to have changed since I was last here...
Anyway... regarding the post, and circumstances. Even assuming, in the highly unlikely event that the toddler understood the meaning of his actions, and the meaning of the word 'amen,' one has to wonder about the truth of the matter here.
Let's look at the stated facts. The child in question 'refused ' to say amen after a meal?
Ok,so, they starved him on an assumption that he would refuse to say the word after his next meal?
How were they able to ascertain such knowledge prior to this event? What? Was it a case of 'One strike and you're dead?'
It takes a while to starve someone to death... and I am assuming that with a nurturing and caring Mother, the toddler would have been in good health prior to this issue.
I do not believe for one second, (just my own personal opinion, based on no other evidence than intuition) that the Mother was out of her senses, yet she was able to stand by and watch her babe's horrific sufferings, and NOT know that she was murdering him? This would not have happened overnight. How could she have been so insensitive and uncaring, or so stupid as to have believed such nonsense as his 'resurrection' after starvation?
And, even in the unlikely event that THIS too was the case, that the Mother was mentally, or emotionally incapacitated; is it being implied that everyone else involved and around her was also? No, I do not believe that either.
Gilbert got it about right, as usual. We should seriously be looking towards some type of psychological examination before people are allowed to have children at all.
My heart bleeds for what that poor little toddler went thro.