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.
Stepping off a 12 story building in violation of God's law of gravity results in a negative outcome . . . is it punishment? Jesus has the identical consciousness as God . . . you tell me. Did you see the Passion of Christ? I suppose you wouldn't consider yourself a victim if you were scourged and crucified? Why do we have to OBEY God's "laws of nature"? Because God is who we say. We are learning and maturing all our lives. God is unconditional love and definitely CARES whether we successfully mature or not and avoid the negative consequences . . . both in life and in death. Perhaps I missed the inconsistencies. Care to repeat them . . . this is a long thread.
Your proof of all you claim?
Why is god "who we say"? Becuse you think so is not convincing.
BTW, numerous posts have provided links to the inconsistencies. If you do not bother to do the research, why should I provide it again? So you can ignore it again?
Why is god "who we say"? Becuse you think so is not convincing.
It can never be . . . only God can call us and provide the conviction.
Quote:
BTW, numerous posts have provided links to the inconsistencies. If you do not bother to do the research, why should I provide it again? So you can ignore it again?
The thread is over 450 posts long. Nevermind . . . inconsistencies should be EXPECTED . . . if the truth that is believed to be in the scriptures is to be applicable to vastly different audiences . . . in terms of their knowledge and understanding of the world. Revision is actually a good thing and in my "evolutionary scheme of things" the pervasiveness of inconsistencies in its scriptures is one of the sure signs that truth resides in Christian doctrine. Christian doctrine has always been riddled with inconsistencies, and rightly so. Paul clearly explained this feature of his teachings, apparently unnoticed by today's apostles, in I Corinthians 3:1
. . . And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but only as carnal, as to little ones in Christ. I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Nor are you now ready for it, for you are still carnal.
Paul tells us, Jesus tells us, virtually every other source of doctrine similarly reveals that what has been said and recorded was geared to the capabilities, understanding, and sophistication of the original audience. Since it was necessary to "feed milk instead of solid food" to the early audience, this necessity must become clear eventually and be recognized. Otherwise, we would forever "drink milk and ignore solid food."
The original authors of the doctrine believed in its validity unto the end of time, even though it was designed for an earlier more spiritually and cognitively primitive audience. Therefore, it must contain adequate clues for revising those early simplifications. This is inescapable if the claim of validity for more enlightened future audiences is to be accepted. (This is a critical “if” that I have accepted because of its consistency with my basic premise.)
As the inevitable advances in human understanding occur, they cause these clues to emerge as inconsistencies until further revision of the underlying truth provides the appropriate explanations. The system is remarkably sound because the doctrine only requires revision when the audience has evolved the necessary understanding to demand it.
If Jesus told the guy that following the commandments was the way into heaven, wasn't Jesus nullifying himself as the Son of God and only way to the Father and heaven?
dorado. You are correct when you say that Jesus is the only way to God. JESUS is the one who told the guy to do it. Re-read my post in the spirit that it was intended and your arguments lose all footing. Also, in your second attack you misspelled the word "your". Please do not become a scribe.
Logic and reason. It can never be . . . only God can call us and provide the conviction.The thread is over 450 posts long. Nevermind . . . inconsistencies should be EXPECTED . . . if the truth that is believed to be in the scriptures is to be applicable to vastly different audiences . . . in terms of their knowledge and understanding of the world. Revision is actually a good thing and in my "evolutionary scheme of things" the pervasiveness of inconsistencies in its scriptures is one of the sure signs that truth resides in Christian doctrine. Christian doctrine has always been riddled with inconsistencies, and rightly so. Paul clearly explained this feature of his teachings, apparently unnoticed by today's apostles, in I Corinthians 3:1
. . . And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but only as carnal, as to little ones in Christ. I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Nor are you now ready for it, for you are still carnal.
Paul tells us, Jesus tells us, virtually every other source of doctrine similarly reveals that what has been said and recorded was geared to the capabilities, understanding, and sophistication of the original audience. Since it was necessary to "feed milk instead of solid food" to the early audience, this necessity must become clear eventually and be recognized. Otherwise, we would forever "drink milk and ignore solid food."
The original authors of the doctrine believed in its validity unto the end of time, even though it was designed for an earlier more spiritually and cognitively primitive audience. Therefore, it must contain adequate clues for revising those early simplifications. This is inescapable if the claim of validity for more enlightened future audiences is to be accepted. (This is a critical “if” that I have accepted because of its consistency with my basic premise.)
As the inevitable advances in human understanding occur, they cause these clues to emerge as inconsistencies until further revision of the underlying truth provides the appropriate explanations. The system is remarkably sound because the doctrine only requires revision when the audience has evolved the necessary understanding to demand it.
Having seen several examples of your "logic" begs the question: If you call yourself MysticPhd, the only mystery is if your PHD was issued in denial. You seem to live in another reality from humanity. One where you can imagine anything you say to be, pardon the expression, gospel. You seem endlessly able to torque your bible and what it plainly says to mean anything that you want it to.
You continue to claim inerrancy in the hundreds of pages of your bible, with a personal knowledge of them and the ability to research them. Yet claim to be unable to peruse the posts in this topic that provide answers to questions that you demand. Ingenious to say the least, relegating you to religious bigot who brooks no answer that he hasn't provided.
Having seen several examples of your "logic" begs the question: If you call yourself MysticPhd, the only mystery is if your PHD was issued in denial. You seem to live in another reality from humanity. One where you can imagine anything you say to be, pardon the expression, gospel. You seem endlessly able to torque your bible and what it plainly says to mean anything that you want it to.
You continue to claim inerrancy in the hundreds of pages of your bible, with a personal knowledge of them and the ability to research them. Yet claim to be unable to peruse the posts in this topic that provide answers to questions that you demand. Ingenious to say the least, relegating you to religious bigot who brooks no answer that he hasn't provided.
Ad hominem is the refuge of vanquished intellects . . . you are fortunate I do not report them . . . it would be too petty to run to "mommy" or "daddy" because someone attacked my character or called me names. My certainty about the existence of God and God's characteristics of unconditional love and acceptance are experience-based. I have spent decades fitting that reality (for ME) to ALL the knowledge (including science) and speculations of humankind over millennia. It works for me . . . it doesn't have to for anyone else.
Ad hominem is the refuge of vanquished intellects . . . you are fortunate I do not report them . . . it would be too petty to run to "mommy" or "daddy" because someone attacked my character or called me names. My certainty about the existence of God and God's characteristics of unconditional love and acceptance are experience-based. I have spent decades fitting that reality (for ME) to ALL the knowledge (including science) and speculations of humankind over millennia. It works for me . . . it doesn't have to for anyone else.
Good, because it doesn't. No matter how much you try to convince others of your mystic superiority.
Ad nauseum (or nausea) is more your approach in discussion.
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.
