Reply With Quotefrom a spiritual or magical point of view, yes, if it's not 100% right, it's worthless.
You can't have contradictions or logical inconsistencies in a book ordained by an unchanging being with unlimited power, knowledge and love.
Agreed, but Blake seems to deride anyone who believes anything in the Bible - so let us see if he answers - he won't answer much either - only asks others for info - so he can then ridicule them or play games.
from a spiritual or magical point of view, yes, if it's not 100% right, it's worthless.
You can't have contradictions or logical inconsistencies in a book ordained by an unchanging being with unlimited power, knowledge and love.
Why wouldn't God just skip the first 19 people?
could you be any more of a hypocrite?
Let's see if SBM answers
He can ridicule me as much as he wants, it will not change my beliefs simply because I arrived at them over the years and they are mine, not his. I won't be lured into a pissing contest based on opinions just because he might choose to disagree.
He is en led to his opinions.
My beliefs are simply that, MY particular beliefs. I don't claim any sort so superiority. I think we are all on various stages of our own paths with particular lessons we each need to learn and assimilate as best we can with the faculties that we have at any given time. I am not expressing any particular dogma, so I do not expect anyone to accept them as their own beliefs.
All I am doing is sharing what I have learned that has shaped my life up to this point in it.
I will not be able to answer a lot of his questions simply because I do not have the answer yet. And those I do answer will be my opinions.
Hopefully there will be some humor in this discussion as well.
if this is your analogy for the bible, then why would you believe it?
Well - those are a lot of assumptions there you just threw out without any kind of relevance...you would have to assume that there is some unchanging being - (I never heard of an unchanging being - nor did I ever claim it - personally), you would then have to assume that there was some universal agreement where everyone knew what unlimited power & knowledge was - and you would have to assume that everyone knew and agreed on what LOVE is....
A lot of assumptions there that would have to be addressed - before even beginning to address your statement.
Nothing hypocritical - I always answer - even when I do - you don't like or understand my answer - but I answer.
It could be that or he could just be lying so as to try and exert control over these far flung cities. Jesus was crucified years before Paul was doing his thing. The only basis that we have for Paul's version is him telling the Gallatians that was the case. We know where Rome is, Ephesus and Galatia for example are over in what is now Turkey.
What I do know is that Paul is big on denunciation and damnation. You know he was big on stamping out an way of looking at things but his own way because he says they are damned because God told him that. He does a whole lot of it and that always struck me as different from Jesus. Except when it comes to government where Paul goes a different route.
That verse always gives me a chuckle knowing who Paul is/was and where he came from. Paul wasn't there when Jesus was going to Herod's temple and throwing a fit or hiding out in the country to go to people's homes and feast it up or when he returned to Jerusalem for passover. He certainly wasn't there earlier than that although he certainly was one of the people hunting him for the government.
If you want to believe we should listen to Paul because he says so then go right ahead. I am not big on the notion of Popes and Ayatollahs myself. Might as well believe Skull at that point. He seems to think he is special in being able to tell us what is what.
Why not? Who are those authorities who make these claims? And do you trust everything people say to you?
Also, just because something might not have 100% accuracy, does that mean it possesses no truths at all?
If just one thing were true and the rest false, then as long as that one truth is gleaned, you have gotten something out of it to benefit you, consequently making it worthwhile.
He could if He chose to. Surely you did not mistake my example to be some profound truth, did you? It was merely an example of how people can skew things from the original. I am surprised you did not understand this.
I believe what I have experienced as true in my own particular life experiences after much study. Some of what I believe today are not what I believed in my earlier life. We are shaped by our beliefs as we travel through life.
I have come to believe that we err when we take a literal view of the Bible.
But I expect no one else to share this same belief. It is what it is.
Plus most of us just believe what we want to believe anyway.
your point with the analogy was that it was passed along so many times as to lose any resemblance of the original whisper. Of course our beliefs are shaped through our own journeys but then why look to the bible at all? Do you really need men from thousands of years ago to tell you to be kind to your neighbor? A lessons like that is easily learned through sympathy and empathy
Blake cannot understand this simple concept - of finding something worthwhile - or something good in the midst of a work of art or a text or a spiritual clue. It is black or white - all good or all bad.
Yet he believes he is qualified to judge others.
Priceless.
Why not look to the bible?
Why not look to everything?
Why make conclusions and close yourself off to knowledge?
Why judge those who lean on the bible or believe in it or cherry pick or whatever derisive term you throw out?
Why assume you are superior because they believe in one thing that you don't? Who said your position or stance was superior?
Truth can be found anywhere. Truth can be slapping you right in the face - - yet you might miss it because it is coming from an "inferior" place.
I'm not ridiculing you at all, am I?He can ridicule me as much as he wants, it will not change my beliefs simply because I arrived at them over the years and they are mine, not his. I won't be lured into a pissing contest based on opinions just because he might choose to disagree.
He is en led to his opinions.
My beliefs are simply that, MY particular beliefs. I don't claim any sort so superiority. I think we are all on various stages of our own paths with particular lessons we each need to learn and assimilate as best we can with the faculties that we have at any given time. I am not expressing any particular dogma, so I do not expect anyone to accept them as their own beliefs.
All I am doing is sharing what I have learned that has shaped my life up to this point in it.
I will not be able to answer a lot of his questions simply because I do not have the answer yet. And those I do answer will be my opinions.
Hopefully there will be some humor in this discussion as well.
Sorry, I'm not reading any red lettering.
never said i was superior, nice assumption.
"why make conclusions and close yourself off to knowledge?" Exactly. Why look to the bible. You could have the Quran, the Torah, the Tanakh. You look to the bible because that's what your parents decided for you. Im not sure how much more closed off to knowledge you could be than that
How do you figure that you're qualified to judge me, hypocrite.
There it is...
truth might slap you - but you won't sense it.
Why not look to EVERYTHING?
When did I ever tout the bible?
I am speaking of people attacking Bible believers/supporters with disdain - as if YOU were any better or smarter? You aren't.
The only way to see truth is to be completely open to anything and everything - how could you dismiss the bible and try to argue truth and knowledge?
Only blind people do this.
So in my answer on Life after Death...I judged you?
I answered truthfully and your response was the 3rd grade/stupidity insult...this was a stupid judgement.
Where in that answer about life after death did I judge you.
Be specific.
first of all you can't "see" the truth. Second, if you(not you specifically, "you" in general) are a believer/supporter of the bible then you are most definitely not open to anything and everything.
It could be that or he could just be lying so as to try and exert control over these far flung cities. Jesus was crucified years before Paul was doing his thing. The only basis that we have for Paul's version is him telling the Gallatians that was the case. We know where Rome is, Ephesus and Galatia for example are over in what is now Turkey.
What I do know is that Paul is big on denunciation and damnation. You know he was big on stamping out an way of looking at things but his own way because he says they are damned because God told him that. He does a whole lot of it and that always struck me as different from Jesus. Except when it comes to government where Paul goes a different route.
That verse always gives me a chuckle knowing who Paul is/was and where he came from. Paul wasn't there when Jesus was going to Herod's temple and throwing a fit or hiding out in the country to go to people's homes and feast it up or when he returned to Jerusalem for passover. He certainly wasn't there earlier than that although he certainly was one of the people hunting him for the government.
If you want to believe we should listen to Paul because he says so then go right ahead. I am not big on the notion of Popes and Ayatollahs myself. Might as well believe Skull at that point. He seems to think he is special in being able to tell us what is what.
You bring up some very interesting points. I am glad you did.
Paul was by far the harshest of the Apostles and came to the faith way after Jesus Christ had arisen as most of us know from Biblical accounts, mainly his own.
He was not some super human. He was subject to his own follies and undoubtedly maybe his share of mistakes, constantly running afoul of the other Apostles and teachers of the times. You could almost say he was the most judgmental of all of them.
But by the end of his life he had tempered his teachings. In other words he had evolved to a certain extent in the grace of Christ to the point where he was able to see clearer IMHO.
Except all of the other Apostles did know Jesus and were sent by Jesus. They were with him during his early ministries, his tantrum at the temple, feasting while running from the law and return to Jerusalem.
You bring up some very interesting points. I am glad you did.
Paul was by far the harshest of the Apostles and came to the faith way after Jesus Christ had arisen as most of us know from Biblical accounts, mainly his own.
He was not some super human. He was subject to his own follies and undoubtedly maybe his share of mistakes, constantly running afoul of the other Apostles and teachers of the times. You could almost say he was the most judgmental of all of them.
But by the end of his life he had tempered his teachings. In other words he had evolved to a certain extent in the grace of Christ to the point where he was able to see clearer IMHO.
one one can most definitely see truth ,sense truth, taste & feel truth.
one can certainly appreciate the bible, admire the writings, glean useful knowledge and remain very open to truth.
Damn you're stupid.
I'd prefer not to have to take this discussion to private message with xmas. Please either leave or stop being stupid. K, thanks.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
