Religionist enjoys Condeming people. do u think its healthy ?

[cromagnon]

do you think religionist who always talks about fire and brimstone to people are considered healthy?


Is indoctrinating people with HELL considered healthy?

its taught in MASS
in bible preachers
in TV

these people always like to confuse people with this fear , emphasizing the bible verses that always talks about problem like second coming.

why not teach positive thinking instead.

what could be the negative effects of this? could this be the reason why followers always end up doing the same thing over again , even after going to church.

[fingolfin]

. yeah, they always preach " you'll burn in hell if you're a sinner". yeah right, tell that to my smoking arse.


.. and most religionist are self-righteous people. They only do the TALK, but not really doing the WORK.

[babypaupau]

i think what's unhealthy is when people are blinded by their faith - literally translating what's in the bible and compromising their lives.

[The_Child]

Quote: Originally Posted by cromagnon do you think religionist who always talks about fire and brimstone to people are considered healthy? Is indoctrinating people with HELL considered healthy? its taught in MASS in bible preachers in TV these people always like to confuse people with this fear , emphasizing the bible verses that always talks about problem like second coming. why not teach positive thinking instead. what could be the negative effects of this? could this be the reason why followers always end up doing the same thing over again , even after going to church.

one must also beg to ask the contrary, does the quasi-rational preaching of many dogmatic atheists, mystics, seculars, also healthy?

they are also shown in TV, in Movies, in Radio, in Print, in Ads.

these people always like to confuse people with this idiocy, half-witted assertions, emphasizing non-existent texts, sometimes existing yet over-interpreted texts, that always talks about how bloated their head could be, and how it could explode any moment without warning.

why not teach positive teaching instead? and by positive i mean, to clamp the pie-hole from defining and edifying statements on regards to topics like God, the Soul and the World, which are things that could never be proven, even with the sick method of thinking employed by many of them.


what could be the negative effects of this? it makes the world a more livable place, i know i want to enjoy my sunday mornings without their banter.

cheers!

[HALIKniHUDAS]

Quote: Originally Posted by The_Child one must also beg to ask the contrary, does the quasi-rational preaching of many dogmatic atheists, mystics, seculars, also healthy? they are also shown in TV, in Movies, in Radio, in Print, in Ads. these people always like to confuse people with this idiocy, half-witted assertions, emphasizing non-existent texts, sometimes existing yet over-interpreted texts, that always talks about how bloated their head could be, and how it could explode any moment without warning. why not teach positive teaching instead? and by positive i mean, to clamp the pie-hole from defining and edifying statements on regards to topics like God, the Soul and the World, which are things that could never be proven, even with the sick method of thinking employed by many of them. what could be the negative effects of this? it makes the world a more livable place, i know i want to enjoy my sunday mornings without their banter. cheers!

given a factual event, ang bata mangita jud og justification. mandamay pa og laing pagtoo. yes yes why not teach positive teachings instead of condemning people for not praying the rosary; choosing a pecuilar gender and etc.

ang bata..pls give us a straight answer.

[Egoist]

Naa pud atheist nga fanatic? hehehe

[sanggano_boy]

Quote: Originally Posted by cromagnon do you think religionist who always talks about fire and brimstone to people are considered healthy? Is indoctrinating people with HELL considered healthy? its taught in MASS in bible preachers in TV these people always like to confuse people with this fear , emphasizing the bible verses that always talks about problem like second coming. why not teach positive thinking instead. what could be the negative effects of this? could this be the reason why followers always end up doing the same thing over again , even after going to church.

I've read and watch people "literaly" been to HELL, so wither we like it or not, there is Hell.

I think your the confused bro.

You know whats the common reason why people don't believe in God? They just try to justify everything that they will do is correct!, There just coward in facing reality of reward and punishment.
or They're just afraid of Hell, doing everything to erase it in their conscience cause it's bothering them haunting them like a wild beast day and night? hehehe

Without Hell it's like saying there's no good or evil forces that ever existed. and without this, why bother lying or cheating? Where this good and evil thing grounded if no Hell or no God?

Where is your belief in good and evil grounded?

your response pls.

[Lovely Charm]

Quote: Originally Posted by The_Child one must also beg to ask the contrary, does the quasi-rational preaching of many dogmatic atheists, mystics, seculars, also healthy? they are also shown in TV, in Movies, in Radio, in Print, in Ads. these people always like to confuse people with this idiocy, half-witted assertions, emphasizing non-existent texts, sometimes existing yet over-interpreted texts, that always talks about how bloated their head could be, and how it could explode any moment without warning. why not teach positive teaching instead? and by positive i mean, to clamp the pie-hole from defining and edifying statements on regards to topics like God, the Soul and the World, which are things that could never be proven, even with the sick method of thinking employed by many of them. what could be the negative effects of this? it makes the world a more livable place, i know i want to enjoy my sunday mornings without their banter. cheers!

Sir child i luv the last part- teaching positive teaching and,,,,,it makes the world a more livable place,,

so what you are saying pariho lang ang mga theist, atheist, mysticism?
committing the same crime po of indoctrination?

your luv of Catholicism may justify your claim that mysticism, etc is a quasi-rational system, (its like "i luv my own my native land complex") so its understandable,
but in fairness i haven't encountered any teachings in mysticism that forcibly that talks about intolerance against other religion, worst other denomination. they dont scare abouit hell, & reward you of some heaven just to solicit a "good beheavior". they dont talk about hot tempered, jealous god.
Mysticism is all about searching god w/n & not in some far away heaven; now if that doctrine is crazy then so be it, but at least they dont have the doctrine that condemns other faith,
a god that has anger management issue, a god that would send his only son to be murdered to atone other peoples sin? now talking about being rational or quasi-rational,,would it be that the doctrine of the church is the craziest doctrine as compared to the craziness of ateism, mysticism?

in a way your message is clear- pariho lang tayo (religion,atheism,mysticism, etc) my kagaguhan

though let me add,,RELIGION is always at the top of the chart when it comes to craziness,,
ooopps spare buddhism po

[The_Child]

Quote: Originally Posted by HALIKniHUDAS given a factual event, ang bata mangita jud og justification. mandamay pa og laing pagtoo. yes yes why not teach positive teachings instead of condemning people for not praying the rosary; choosing a pecuilar gender and etc. ang bata..pls give us a straight answer.

you wont recognize a straight answer even if it hits you in the face.

[regnauld]

Quote: Originally Posted by Lovely Charm Sir child i luv the last part- teaching positive teaching and,,,,,it makes the world a more livable place,, so what you are saying pariho lang ang mga theist, atheist, mysticism? committing the same crime po of indoctrination? your luv of Catholicism may justify your claim that mysticism, etc is a quasi-rational system, (its like "i luv my own my native land complex") so its understandable, but in fairness i haven't encountered any teachings in mysticism that forcibly that talks about intolerance against other religion, worst other denomination. they dont scare abouit hell, & reward you of some heaven just to solicit a "good beheavior". they dont talk about hot tempered, jealous god. Mysticism is all about searching god w/n & not in some far away heaven; now if that doctrine is crazy then so be it, but at least they dont have the doctrine that condemns other faith, a god that has anger management issue, a god that would send his only son to be murdered to atone other peoples sin? now talking about being rational or quasi-rational,,would it be that the doctrine of the church is the craziest doctrine as compared to the craziness of ateism, mysticism? in a way your message is clear- pariho lang tayo (religion,atheism,mysticism, etc) my kagaguhan though let me add,,RELIGION is always at the top of the chart when it comes to craziness,, ooopps spare buddhism po

Why do you always use the word kagaguhan Inday Michelle? Just curious lang.
It seems you are "fixated" with the word kagaguhan with other men.

[The_Child]

Quote: Originally Posted by Lovely Charm Sir child i luv the last part- teaching positive teaching and,,,,,it makes the world a more livable place,, so what you are saying pariho lang ang mga theist, atheist, mysticism? committing the same crime po of indoctrination? your luv of Catholicism may justify your claim that mysticism, etc is a quasi-rational system, (its like "i luv my own my native land complex") so its understandable, but in fairness i haven't encountered any teachings in mysticism that forcibly that talks about intolerance against other religion, worst other denomination. they dont scare abouit hell, & reward you of some heaven just to solicit a "good beheavior". they dont talk about hot tempered, jealous god. Mysticism is all about searching god w/n & not in some far away heaven; now if that doctrine is crazy then so be it, but at least they dont have the doctrine that condemns other faith, a god that has anger management issue, a god that would send his only son to be murdered to atone other peoples sin? now talking about being rational or quasi-rational,,would it be that the doctrine of the church is the craziest doctrine as compared to the craziness of ateism, mysticism? in a way your message is clear- pariho lang tayo (religion,atheism,mysticism, etc) my kagaguhan though let me add,,RELIGION is always at the top of the chart when it comes to craziness,, ooopps spare buddhism po

it wouldnt be fair to reduce me to a catholic. Im a catholic depending on the weather.

mysticism, i believe is, supra-rational. It is beyond reason. by quasi-rational, i was referring to "Mystics", quote and quote. because mysticism, is in the end, Silence. mystical experience could never be explained by words, could never be taught by words, wasnt that the origin for dyana -> chan -> zen, the silent buddhism? it is said, the Buddha just smiled and gave away a lotus flower to a disciple and by that he transmitted enlightenment that started dyana (india) chan (china) and the zen (japan).

mysticism is originally, in greek which may be understood as hidden concealed silent. i dont believe the fruits of mysticism can be taught in its pure sense by institutions or by other people. it is a path every man or woman, must take, must discover, must qualify, for his/her ownself.

mysticism has no doctrine, exactly, it must be beyond doctrines. mysticism which is taught is a contradiction, which has doctrines is a contradiction, which has organizing committees is a contradiction. thats what i think. mysticism, or the thought of it, must wish itself not to be edified.

the doctrines of the church are sometimes crazy, indeed, and sometimes has some sense. but so far, i have not encountered anyone from other camps to present a statement which is lesser crazier. sa ibang salita, kung kagaguhan lang naman ang paguusapan ang mga ideya at doktrina ng kristyanismo, ay walang katapat sa kabila, lalo na sa mga nagpapanggap na may-alam, the intellectual poseurs. akalain nila na sila lang ang marunong magbasa.



i have no problems with atheism nor mysticism. my problem is with people who are so full of themselves and they call themselves, seculars, humanists, mystics, atheists, theists, religionists, intellectuals, scientists, priests, or what have you. they think the world revolves around their imagination and delusions of grandeur.

cheers!

[miyay]

Quote: Originally Posted by The_Child why not teach positive teaching instead? and by positive i mean, to clamp the pie-hole from defining and edifying statements on regards to topics like God, the Soul and the World, which are things that could never be proven, even with the sick method of thinking employed by many of them. what could be the negative effects of this? it makes the world a more livable place, i know i want to enjoy my sunday mornings without their banter. cheers!

yup, hard to define god, the soul and the world. i don't think we can rationalize these concepts. we can only experience them for ourselves. i think, teachers preach their own interpretations based on their own experiences, theories and faith. some recognize that each experience is unique and therefore do not force their beliefs on others. while, some, in their pride, think that theirs are the only truths.

the question is, how should the listeners/readers take these in? with a grain of salt. after all, to each his/her own. cheers to choice!

[miyay]

i would be wary on mysticism taught but mysticism shared is most welcome. buddha took in some students so maybe he wanted to share his wisdom. i never understood why some masters/mystics would shroud their wisdom in exclusivity through silence

[Tirong-say]

Quote: Originally Posted by cromagnon do you think religionist who always talks about fire and brimstone to people are considered healthy? Is indoctrinating people with HELL considered healthy? its taught in MASS in bible preachers in TV these people always like to confuse people with this fear , emphasizing the bible verses that always talks about problem like second coming. why not teach positive thinking instead. what could be the negative effects of this? could this be the reason why followers always end up doing the same thing over again , even after going to church.

Preachings and homilies would always site the ugliness of damnation not because to strengthen one's affinity towards religion, but to remind it's follower's consciousness that there will be punishment if they would commit sins. I do not see any negative impacts on this endeavour for the mentioned sins is also atoned with our supposed human laws, our laws which regulate morality, ideal way of living, pro life, so on and so forth.

I could say that preachings and homilies as intended for the spiritual life, has a great contribution for the betterment of human kind, it ought to control the very dark side of a man and thus promoting well being for everyone.

[flying fish]

Quote: Originally Posted by The_Child it wouldnt be fair to reduce me to a catholic. Im a catholic depending on the weather. mysticism, i believe is, supra-rational. It is beyond reason. by quasi-rational, i was referring to "Mystics", quote and quote. because mysticism, is in the end, Silence. mystical experience could never be explained by words, could never be taught by words, wasnt that the origin for dyana -> chan -> zen, the silent buddhism? it is said, the Buddha just smiled and gave away a lotus flower to a disciple and by that he transmitted enlightenment that started dyana (india) chan (china) and the zen (japan). mysticism is originally, in greek which may be understood as hidden concealed silent. i dont believe the fruits of mysticism can be taught in its pure sense by institutions or by other people. it is a path every man or woman, must take, must discover, must qualify, for his/her ownself. mysticism has no doctrine, exactly, it must be beyond doctrines. mysticism which is taught is a contradiction, which has doctrines is a contradiction, which has organizing committees is a contradiction. thats what i think. mysticism, or the thought of it, must wish itself not to be edified. the doctrines of the church are sometimes crazy, indeed, and sometimes has some sense. but so far, i have not encountered anyone from other camps to present a statement which is lesser crazier. sa ibang salita, kung kagaguhan lang naman ang paguusapan ang mga ideya at doktrina ng kristyanismo, ay walang katapat sa kabila, lalo na sa mga nagpapanggap na may-alam, the intellectual poseurs. akalain nila na sila lang ang marunong magbasa. i have no problems with atheism nor mysticism. my problem is with people who are so full of themselves and they call themselves, seculars, humanists, mystics, atheists, theists, religionists, intellectuals, scientists, priests, or what have you. they think the world revolves around their imagination and delusions of grandeur. cheers!

good post the child,,and i think Ms Charm has the same concern (in her case tantrum) when it comes to people as what youve said "so full of themselves & call them selves"