Good morning Mystykal,
I would hope that you intended "beyond dismayed" to be some cute hyperbole. I can't imagine how you could have meant it seriously. You specifically said that "The GOD of the WORD can raise you from the dead and give you life everlasting" and then you said that you knew this was true because it happened to you, to your uncle, and to many people you personally know. What did you say happened? You said God
had raised you from the dead and
had given you eternal life! If something has been given you, then you "have" it, right? Now you say that you didn't mean that you HAVE eternal life, which means that God has not yet given it to you, and so now you are denying what you said.
So once again we are going in circles, and I seriously doubt it would help if I read any slower!
The Bible, which you say is "the Word of God", uses the male pronoun to refer to God from beginning to end. It doesn't matter how many times you used it in that one post!
The fact that Jesus calls God "Father" seems to me to be part of the problem, not the solution.
There are occasions where "he" is used rather than the grammatically correct "it" for the Holy Spirit but that's because there also are places where the masculine pronoun is used in reference to the Spirit which in Greek is neuter (and in Hebrew it is feminine, and in Latin it is masculine). So obviously, we can't derive anything about the gender of the Third Person of the Trinity from the grammatical gender of the word referring to him. This is particularly obvious because "he" is called Spirit (neuter), "Wisdom" (feminine), and "Comforter" (masculine). Some folks think the latter proves "he" is both personal and masculine. Here is the explanation from the
wiki:
William Mounce argues that in
John's gospel, when Jesus referred to the Holy Spirit as Comforter (masculine in Greek), the grammatically necessary masculine form of the Greek pronoun autos is used,
[15] but
when Jesus speaks of the Holy Spirit as Spirit, grammatically neuter in Greek,[16] the masculine form of the demonstrative pronoun ekeinos ("that masculine one") is used.[15] This breaking of the grammatical agreement expected by native language readers is an indication of the author's intention to convey the personhood of the Holy Spirit, and also the Spirit's masculinity.
[17] Daniel Wallace, however, disputes the claim that ekeinos is connected with pneuma in John 14:26 and 16:13-14, asserting instead that it belongs to parakletos. Wallace concludes that "it is difficult to find any text in which πνευμα is grammatically referred to with the masculine gender".
[18] When I was a Christian I tried to "fix" the problem of the extremely gender biased image of God by interpreting the Holy Spirit as feminine. I can see why you would find this appealing, but I think it's more honest to simply admit that the God of the Bible is not accurately represented as a balance between male and female. Not by a long shot - especially when viewed in the context of the inextricable sexism that saturates the text.
Well, mere evidence does not equate with "proof". I was just trying to be clear with my words, because other folks on this forum recently castigated me for using the word "proof" when I should have used "evidence."
You assertion that the stories in the Bible are not just stories has no basis in fact, and indeed, you agree that many of the stories are NOT factual. You arbitrarily assert that some really happened in "real time" while others are mere metaphors. Your position seems quite inconsistent to me. And your assertion that people should be able to perform similar miracles today seems quite absurd because Christians have had two thousand years to demonstrate their superpowers and they have utterly failed. Why do you think any of the stories are true? I asked you this, (see above), and you said that you KNOW because you HAVE RECEIVED eternal life from God. Now you say that you didn't mean that, so we are back to square one. How do you discern between truth and falsehood? As far as I can tell, you don't bother with this question. You merely believe what you want to believe.
Where in the world do you get the idea that people are commonly raised from the dead in "real time"? That's not even close to true.
Why do you keep saying that there are people who can really raise the dead? If that were true, it would be worldwide news. I get the impression you are being very gullible. I remember when the lying adulterous clown freak Todd Bentley said that there had been 31 people raised from the dead at his Carnival of Christian Confusion aka Lakeland Revival. I note that hundreds of thousands fo Christians who totally believe in the reality of modern miracle workers flocked to watch that conman. This is what happens if you have no standards to discern between truth and falsehood. And of course, this leads to the question: You judge many who claim to have the Holy Spirit as false. How do you do that? How do you discern between a person who "really" has the Spirit and one who falsely claims that?
The "fundies" have not messed with my brain. You are the one making claims that are logically and factually indistinguishable from common fundamentalist claims. I'm the one asking how a rational person could distinguish between your claims and those others.
OK - I didn't know you thought life on this earth was so bleak, pathetic, and meaningless. We are very different in this regard. I find life to be very rich and filled with much meaning.
This is a very interesting topic worthy of much discussion. Many folks have the feeling that life would be totally meaningless if their EGO could ever cease to exist. That is the direct opposite of what the Wisdom Masters teach.
The idea that this life would meaningless if we don't live forever makes no sense to me. My life last year did not become "meaningful" only because I am alive now and can remember it. It was meaningful in and of itself when it was actually happening in real time. If this life is not meaningful in and of itself now, regardless of our future, then it won't suddenly become meaningful at any time in the future. How would mere continued existence change something from being meaningless to meaningful? I think there is gross confusion about the meaning of meaning.
Your view on the relation between the OT and NT seems entirely upside down. The primary meaning of the Gospel can be read and understood from the NT alone. There would be a lot of missing context, but the Gospel message could be discerned. The same cannot be said of the OT. Without the NT, there would be no Gospel at all. Your elevation of the OT over the NT makes not sense to me at all. Do you not believe they are both equally the "Word of God" in all ways? I get the impression that answer is no.
You've got to be kidding me! Eating hot coals is not a supernatural feat! It totally follows normal physics. It's like the silly "fire walking" fad that people think is supernatural. Here's a video of skeptic Michael Shermer walking on coals.
Like Shermer says, firewalking is a typical illusion used in Buddhism, Hinduism, an pop New Age spirituality.
Wow, you seem totally confused on this topic. On the one hand you say the Bible is the Word of God while on the other you say it is full of stories that are not true and cannot be trusted because they are written by fallible men. Which is it?
And you didn't answer my question. I still have no idea why you think all the stories are true if they are not inspired. Of course, you say they are and then you say they are not, and then you say that your words are a "koan".
Now you say that the Bible gives a "clear path to follow." What path is that? And if it is so clear, why can't you even say what it is, and why do the vast majority of the most devout Bible believers disagree not only with you but amongst themselves?
And again you repeat the common idea that "Spiritual things are Spiritually discerned" but you seem to have forgotten that I asked a very pertinent question that must be answered. What does it mean to discern something "spiritually". How can you discern if you discernment is valid? Suppose two people come to different conclusions. How could an objective third party discern between truth and error? How could I know who was right and who was wrong? This is the question I have been asking you for many months, and all you can tell me is that you KNOW your beliefs are true because God has "raised you from the dead and given you eternal life"? Would you become a Hindu if a Hindu told you he saw his guru levitating? Do you understand the difference between anecdotes and evidence?
Great chatting,
Richard
Bookmarks