What book are people reading now?

[LittleLambofJesus]

"The Book of Life" by YHWH.

 

[Exegete12]

"The Book of Life" by YHWH.

Thought you would have said Revelation LLOJ.

 

[A. believer]

He also comes across as a decent chap which i didn't expect. Has religious freinds and respects people just not the beleifs.

A "decent chap" or a decent fascist?.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by LittleLambofJesus "The Book of Life" by YHWH.

Thought you would have said Revelation LLOJ.

http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html

(book AND of AND life)
occurs in 8 verses in the KJV

Well, out of 8 times the Book of Life is mentioned in the NC of the Bible, 7 of those times are in Revelation, and 2 of those with "The Lamb-kin.. The numbers 7 and 8 are interesing numbers in the Bible.

Revelation 13:8 And bow before it shall all who are dwelling upon the land, whose names have not been written in the scroll of the life of the Lamb slaughtered from the foundation of the world;

http://www.kingdombiblestudies.org/lb/LB1.htm

According to the Emphatic Diaglott the correct rendering of the latter part of this passage is: "The Book of the Life of the Lamb." Now, what is meant by this term – THE BOOK OF THE LIFE OF THE LAMB? The wise man said, "...of the making of many books there is no end..." (Eccl. 12:12). The book stores are filled to overflowing today with all types of books dealing with every aspect of earthly life. Even in the church world there are books setting forth every kind of viewpoint relating to God, the Bible, doctrine, Christian experience, and church order. However the subject material of most of these books largely contains a message of religious tradition and spiritual death.

 

[meebs]

A "decent chap" or a decent fascist?.

I did not see anything fascist like in his book. He has strong opinions thats it. He even has freinds in the churches. That's right christian freinds.

Just like i have!

 

[A. believer]

I did not see anything fascist like in his book. He has strong opinions thats it. He even has freinds in the churches. That's right christian freinds.

Just like i have!

Did you read the article I just linked to? It's not only in his book that he states his opinions, but his fascist views too seep through in his book. For instance, he does indicate in his book that parents who teach their children their religion are unfit parents, and Dawkins isn't just writing to state his opinions. He's trying to alter society to suit his view of reality. If Dawkins had his druthers, religious parents would not be allowed to teach their children their beliefs.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Did you read the article I just linked to? It's not only in his book that he states his opinions, but his fascist views too seep through in his book. For instance, he does indicate in his book that parents who teach their children their religion are unfit parents, and Dawkins isn't just writing to state his opinions. He's trying to alter society to suit his view of reality. If Dawkins had his druthers, religious parents would not be allowed to teach their children their beliefs.

Will they be able to bug their homes to find out if they are or not?
One cannot FORCE another to believe in their beliefs. I have 2 grown daughters, one came to the Lord early in life, the other went the other way but has just turned around but not because of being forced.

For example the Muslims and pope/catholic church use the "hellfire" scare tactic to get people to convert and do you think that is the right way to bring someone to the Christ of the Bible? Endtime and hellfire books read by Christians have been the bane of Christianity more than anything else in my view.
Thoughts?

http://www.christianforums.com/t5719262-protestant-converts-after-seeing-hell.html
protestant-converts-after-seeing-hell

 

[meebs]

Did you read the article I just linked to? It's not only in his book that he states his opinions, but his fascist views too seep through in his book. For instance, he does indicate in his book that parents who teach their children their religion are unfit parents, and Dawkins isn't just writing to state his opinions. He's trying to alter society to suit his view of reality. If Dawkins had his druthers, religious parents would not be allowed to teach their children their beliefs.

There are some conservatives who think the same way...

Though i may notice this last statement highlighted in bold - shouldnt we be teaching our children alternative views (as well as our own) instead of teaching their beleifs*? You mean teaching children "your" beleifs? Is it right in this sense to teach a child what to beleive?

Dawkins is right - A child cannot be a "muslim" or "christian" child - they are too young to understand. Better to label them a child of muslims or a child of christians.

There are many things i disagree with Dawkins about don't you worry but i disagree he is fascist.

What alternative would you propose to him? To us? Im not saying there isn't one but the book basically is a defense of Dawkins (and perhaps people who hold similar beleifs) own opinions. His suggestions of what he thinks might make a better world.

*Dawkins doesn't suggest that - thats more of my own opinion.

 

[A. believer]

There are some conservatives who think the same way...

Though i may notice this last statement highlighted in bold - shouldnt we be teaching our children alternative views (as well as our own) instead of teaching their beleifs*? You mean teaching children "your" beleifs? Is it right in this sense to teach a child what to beleive?

Sure, we should teach children other beliefs, but not that those other beliefs are valid or true. Atheists indoctrinate their children into their beliefs just like everyone else.

Dawkins is right - A child cannot be a "muslim" or "christian" child - they are too young to understand. Better to label them a child of muslims or a child of christians.

There was a time, even after my conversion, that I would have actually agreed with this sentiment, but I've since repented of that silly notion. If Richard Dawkins has children, I'm sure that he regarded them as Dawkinses well before they understood that's what they were.

There are many things i disagree with Dawkins about don't you worry but i disagree he is fascist.

Did you read the article I linked to that made this accusation? It sounds to me as if the man is on a mission to remake society in his own image and, according to that image--much like the former Soviet Union--there's no place for religion.

I'd really appreciate it if you'd read both of my links if you want to discuss this with me. Otherwise, there's nothing really to respond to.

 

[baobobtree]

Man's Eternal Quest by Paramahansa Yogananda.

"The Book of Life" by YHWH.

Good book. I highly recommend reading the New Testament part of the book repeatedly.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Man's Eternal Quest by Paramahansa Yogananda.

Good book. I highly recommend reading the New Testament part of the book repeatedly.

That is what I tell all new Christians coming to Christ to read FIRST before the Old Testament.
I Love the Gospel of John.

 

[meebs]

I'd really appreciate it if you'd read both of my links if you want to discuss this with me. Otherwise, there's nothing really to respond to.

You sent one link

Yes i read it - disturbing on some levels yes. However i cannot jump to conclusions till i see more information.

A note though - Is Dawkins any different from those christians (even moderate) who want to see a christian run nation, with christian based schools.?

He is being a bit extreme i wouldnt go that far but i already stated i don't agree with him 100%.

However if you were as charasmatic as Dawkins wouldn't you campaign for changes?

 

[meebs]

Sure, we should teach children other beliefs, but not that those other beliefs are valid or true. Atheists indoctrinate their children into their beliefs just like everyone else.

Not necassarily - My Dad is a passive atheist, my mum an active christian. Thus i ended up going to church quite a bit. I think it varies on the policy of the parents. Both may be passive thus letting say, granny take their kids to church.

There was a time, even after my conversion, that I would have actually agreed with this sentiment, but I've since repented of that silly notion. If Richard Dawkins has children, I'm sure that he regarded them as Dawkinses well before they understood that's what they were.

Well they were born into that family name - it was a title simply that. Religion is another matter - you are not born into a beleif.

Did you read the article I linked to that made this accusation? It sounds to me as if the man is on a mission to remake society in his own image and, according to that image--much like the former Soviet Union--there's no place for religion.

See comments above.

My big question - Though individual religious figures have done good works - ie humanists, scientists, engineers, health workers, politicians etc.. What overall image do you think organised religion gives?

Overall its a negative position. You actually wonder why people campaign against it? Wars, invasions, general voilence over its own people, disrespect for women, inquisitions, corruption, trying to reverse scientific and political progress...

Dawkins may go to more of an extreme but he (and his collegues) is making a valid point - religion has gone too far in the past, is it no wonder people want to change things?

I guess i should aim this in general.

 

[A. believer]

You sent one link

I posted links on my posts #55 and #63.

Yes i read it - disturbing on some levels yes. However i cannot jump to conclusions till i see more information.

A note though - Is Dawkins any different from those christians (even moderate) who want to see a christian run nation, with christian based schools.?

Yes, he's different. He's an atheist. But, seriously, it is different, because of the ethical framework he wants to establish. Christian ethics are superior to utilitarian ones. A utilitarian ethical framework disregards the inherent sanctity and dignity of man and weighs the value of a life on purely pragmatic concerns. There's no place for so-called "useless" individuals in a society like that. We're already moving in that direction, but our Christian heritage provides some restraints.

He is being a bit extreme i wouldnt go that far but i already stated i don't agree with him 100%.

I don't know how far you do or don't agree with him, but I pray that, when the ramifications of his worldview become apparent to you, you'll distance yourself from people like him completely, and recognize the goodness of God.

However if you were as charasmatic as Dawkins wouldn't you campaign for changes?

He may be charismatic, but he's certainly no philosopher.

 

[A. believer]

Not necassarily - My Dad is a passive atheist, my mum an active christian. Thus i ended up going to church quite a bit. I think it varies on the policy of the parents. Both may be passive thus letting say, granny take their kids to church.

A passive Christian is like a passive husband or wife who has no commitment to his or her spouse. By one's life, one's children learns one's beliefs. And even an atheist has allegiances to one "god" or another (money, temporal pleasure, sex, or whatever) which are passed down to his or her children.

Well they were born into that family name - it was a title simply that. Religion is another matter - you are not born into a beleif.

Membership in a family is more than just a "title" and so is membership in a religion. It's an identity. One can choose to reject it when one is old enough to do so, but one is born into it.

My big question - Though individual religious figures have done good works - ie humanists, scientists, engineers, health workers, politicians etc.. What overall image do you think organised religion gives?

I don't advocate "organized religion," in general, but Christianity in particular, and I would say that, by all means, Christianity has changed the world much for the better. A modernist who denies the positive impact that Christianity has had on Western civilization is like a spoiled rich kid who, upon receiving his his inheritance, rejects his family, citing them for extreme cruelty because his father loses his temper once in a while and unjustly yells at him. Of course, if the child gets enough reinforcement in this view from those around him, he can really work himself up into believing it's justified.

Overall its a negative position. You actually wonder why people campaign against it? Wars, invasions, general voilence over its own people, disrespect for women, inquisitions, corruption, trying to reverse scientific and political progress...

In regard to Christianity, I would dispute some things on your list, but where it's failed, this is a failing due to the sin nature, and not due to Christianity. If atheists ever succeeded in wiping Christianity (and religion in general) off the map, they'd certainly be dismayed to find that not only have they failed to improve human nature, but they've removed the restraints that make society function. (Doesn't anyone read Lord of the Flies anymore these days?) But secularists are blatantly selective in their criticism. They seem utterly incapable of seeing the correlation between atheistic philosophies and evil and of recognizing the atrocities that have been done in the name of (and consistent with) atheistic philosophies.

Dawkins may go to more of an extreme but he (and his collegues) is making a valid point - religion has gone too far in the past, is it no wonder people want to change things?

"Gone too far" according to what standard? The atheists own, self-made one, of course. Without a fixed and transcendent standard of goodness, it makes no sense to criticize anyone for falling short of it. And the atheist has no basis for a fixed standard.