Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You guys are not understanding mystic or my points.
Do you guys even know how the bible was put together?
By your post I doubt it.
It is all about growth of knowledge of God, and you can see thing growth in understanding thoughout the bible.
Let me give you an example.
2 Samuel 24:1
And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.
1 Chronicles 21:1
And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.
The earlier writer of samuel believed God was the one who moved David to number Israel, however the later writer believed it was satan that moved David to number Israel.
Obvious both writers cannot be correct. Unless of course you follow the fundy line of putting them both together and say God used satan to move david to number Israel. However neither scripture actually says that.
So what's going on? For myself ( and I believe others) I see a growth in the knowledge of God.
Most writers of the OT believed everything that happened to them was Gods doing, both the evil and the good. Thus they wrote what they believed.
You can see this same type of thing throughout the bible until Jesus Christ.
Now for any christian Jesus Christ is the pattern, the express image of the Father, and Jesus gave us a standered to follow and that standared is agpe/love and we are to test all spirits via the spirit of agape/love.
Now as you guys do not believe in Jesus I do not expect you to believe in the standard he put forth, but to say we are cherry picking is just not the case, we are following the standard Jesus Christ set forth.
You guys are not understanding mystic or my points.
Do you guys even know how the bible was put together?
By your post I doubt it.
It is all about growth of knowledge of God, and you can see thing growth in understanding thoughout the bible.
Let me give you an example.
2 Samuel 24:1
And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.
1 Chronicles 21:1
And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.
The earlier writer of samuel believed God was the one who moved David to number Israel, however the later writer believed it was satan that moved David to number Israel.
Obvious both writers cannot be correct. Unless of course you follow the fundy line of putting them both together and say God used satan to move david to number Israel. However neither scripture actually says that.
So what's going on? For myself ( and I believe others) I see a growth in the knowledge of God.
Most writers of the OT believed everything that happened to them was Gods doing, both the evil and the good. Thus they wrote what they believed.
You can see this same type of thing throughout the bible until Jesus Christ.
Now for any christian Jesus Christ is the pattern, the express image of the Father, and Jesus gave us a standered to follow and that standared is agpe/love and we are to test all spirits via the spirit of agape/love.
Now as you guys do not believe in Jesus I do not expect you to believe in the standard he put forth, but to say we are cherry picking is just not the case, we are following the standard Jesus Christ set forth.
No, I think you are the one missing the point. The point is, you don't know that there was a growth in the knowledge of God. You ASSUME there was. (Confirmation bias) The Bible was written by many different people, at different times, all well after the supposed events. You don't know that the NT is any more accurate than the OT. You want it to be, so you ASSUME it is. That is cherry-picking. It is no different than fundies using Leviticus to hate on gays while ignoring all the other stupid stuff from it.
Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position
i would also suggest he not limit himself to reading books but also to spend time walking through groves of trees and/or setting himself down on a comfy log beside a trout creek. Sitting quietly in one of nature's "factories" can be a wonderful, deeply spiritual experience.
I suspect Freak will be communing with trees, squirrels and rocks any year now.
This, Freak.
Being in a cubicle does not mean you are separated from nature. Did you buy that plant for your cubicle yet?
Do you take walks on your breaks? Have you appreciated the trees that are turning colors? Have you noticed the change in light? In which birds you see? The shift of the seasons?
The good stuff is everywhere, Freak. You just need to train yourself to see it.
p.s. If you hate your job...what is your passion? You aren't at work 24/ 7. What are you doing to make yourself happy when you are away from your cubicle? (A cubicle! You aren't down in the mines or picking crops as a laborer .Lucky you...hint...hint.) You've read the Bible. Have you read Thoreau? Whitman? Dillard?
I doubt you'd believe this but Christ was perfect prior to coming to earth and perfect while on earth. Being put on a cross He was cursed and marred by the sin of mankind being put upon Him. He also lost that communion with God during His trial and on the cross and in death. Sure, one can just glibly say He rose from the dead three days later so where's the sacrifice? What is the cut-off for what is a sacrifice and what isn't? Maybe you are an expert in this field?
I doubt you'd believe this but Christ was perfect prior to coming to earth and perfect while on earth. Being put on a cross He was cursed and marred by the sin of mankind being put upon Him. He also lost that communion with God during His trial and on the cross and in death. Sure, one can just glibly say He rose from the dead three days later so where's the sacrifice? What is the cut-off for what is a sacrifice and what isn't? Maybe you are an expert in this field?
If God is everywhere then why the the loss of communion during his trial and his death?
I would say that one must loose something of importance for it to be scarifice. No I am not an expert in this field. You have expressed your opinions in many threads where you have shown little knowledge let alone expertise, for example evolution, so I am not sure why I must be an expert in the field of scarifice in order to have an opinion.
So he was perfect before he came to earth, was then born a baby and grew up still being perfect and then he was executed by the Romans and they or his father who is himself placed the sins of mankind upon him and he died and went back to where he came from. Is he perfect again or is he still marred? If so then is not God also marred and therefore not perfect? Many others have been placed on a cross so are they also cursed re your second sentence?
The reason I come to this forum is to try to understand the thinking of people such as yourself. From my way of thinking you put up more problems just to solve earlier problems but perhaps I am missing something. I am not arguing if Jesus lived or not but if his death was a scarifice or not, and especially found it irrational for some to say that he made the ultimate scariface by dying for our sins if he was alive before he was born and returned to where he came from after his death.
If God is everywhere then why the the loss of communion during his trial and his death?
I would say that one must loose something of importance for it to be scarifice. No I am not an expert in this field. You have expressed your opinions in many threads where you have shown little knowledge let alone expertise, for example evolution, so I am not sure why I must be an expert in the field of scarifice in order to have an opinion.
So he was perfect before he came to earth, was then born a baby and grew up still being perfect and then he was executed by the Romans and they or his father who is himself placed the sins of mankind upon him and he died and went back to where he came from. Is he perfect again or is he still marred? If so then is not God also marred and therefore not perfect? Many others have been placed on a cross so are they also cursed re your second sentence?
The reason I come to this forum is to try to understand the thinking of people such as yourself. From my way of thinking you put up more problems just to solve earlier problems but perhaps I am missing something. I am not arguing if Jesus lived or not but if his death was a scarifice or not, and especially found it irrational for some to say that he made the ultimate scariface by dying for our sins if he was alive before he was born and returned to where he came from after his death.
The Father is not Jesus.
Jesus said to tell the disciples after He came out of the tomb that He was ascending to His God and their God and to His Father and their Father. Therefore . . . .
Yes, anyone on a cross is cursed.
The sacrifice has more to do with His obedience unto death, the death of the cross and giving up His perfection and communion with God. For the first time in the history of the universe God's perfect Son was no longer perfect but took on the sin of all mankind.
Jesus said to tell the disciples after He came out of the tomb that He was ascending to His God and their God and to His Father and their Father. Therefore . . . .
Yes, anyone on a cross is cursed.
The sacrifice has more to do with His obedience unto death, the death of the cross and giving up His perfection and communion with God. For the first time in the history of the universe God's perfect Son was no longer perfect but took on the sin of all mankind.
You have a different opinion than others about if they are the same or different person. Nothing wrong with that but for those who claim them as one they he should have been in communications with himself.
As far as taking on the sin of mankind does that mean that we no longer have it or does it mean that we can just repent and then we do not have it? Seems this too is different among different Christians. But we are getting way off topic. Cheers
You have a different opinion than others about if they are the same or different person. Nothing wrong with that but for those who claim them as one they he should have been in communications with himself.
As far as taking on the sin of mankind does that mean that we no longer have it or does it mean that we can just repent and then we do not have it? Seems this too is different among different Christians. But we are getting way off topic. Cheers
There are just too many problems associated with the concept that Jesus is God in the absolute sense. Yes, Jesus can carry the title "God" but in what sense? God's spirit fills heaven and earth. Jesus is in one locale. God sent His Son into the world. God did not send Himself. Of course there are ones who disagree on this matter. But only one can be correct. I tend to side with Scripture rather than man's creeds.
Mankind as a whole are neutral recipients of what Christ accomplished due to His obedience to the Father (see Romans 5:12,18,19). Two men, two acts, all mankind affected.
Since Christ died God is no longer reckoning our offenses to us. He is at peace with the world and entreats mankind to be at peace with Him. But this does not mean God lets mankind off the hook for what they do and say. Mankind still needs set right. That's a good thing.
I did, Freak. I used the entire "spiritual fossil record" of humankind's attempts to understand God. That was how I discovered the evolving template for how humankind would come to understand God. The Jesus story is the most sophisticated version of the template with no successor versions. That is why I am personally so certain about it. We all use our experiences and our knowledge to come to conclusions about our reality in an informal synthesis that for most of us remains beyond our conscious awareness. It is what comprises what we take to be absolutely true about reality. Presenting mine here has no agenda. I am not starting a religion. I am explaining my understanding of an existing one. I do not expect anyone to accept my views over theirs. That is not how life works. I literally am explaining, defending and witnessing with no purpose other than to provide my hard-won understanding to anyone with whom it might resonate.I am not setting myself up as a religious authority. I am just defending my views about which I am personally very certain because of my experiences and hard-won knowledge. I am not competing with anyone, secular or religious. I simply present my views, defend them from attack, and explain them as best I can with no other agenda or purpose in mind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by old_cold
You proclaim and defend them in such a vociferous way, that it does not read that way, ever.
I have admitted that my 30 years as a Professor has habituated my communication manner.
I have admitted that my 30 years as a Professor has habituated my communication manner.
What are you a professor of? Spiritual geology? Is that how you found the "spiritual fossil record?"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
