Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 22

Thread: Cult of Dusty

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by Ps 27:1 View Post
    I forced myself to watch the whole video, but it only saddened me. I would guess that he never consumated his marriage to Jesus and thus the boredom, bitterness, and mocking. A couch potato will never know or understand what its like to run 50 - 100 miles per week and crave it, unless they have experienced it. And I know it's real because I have been at both ends of the spectrum. Even recreational runners may never experience the intense joys (for lack of better word at the moment) running has to offer because they never push through the wall(s).
    Hey there Steve,

    As I mentioned to Timmy, that sounds like the "No True Scotsman" fallacy to me. Is there any way to know if anyone has ever "consummated his marriage to Jesus?" No? Then it is a meaningless criterion.

    Many folks, even professional apologists like Hank Hanegraaff (the Bible Answer Man) - assert that anyone who quits the faith was never a "true" Christian because by definition, true Christians can't lose their faith. I don't find that line of reasoning very convincing.

    All the best,

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    227
    Hey there Steve,

    As I mentioned to Timmy, that sounds like the "No True Scotsman" fallacy to me. Is there any way to know if anyone has ever "consummated his marriage to Jesus?" No? Then it is a meaningless criterion.
    Hence my usage of "guess". Back to my analogy of runners. If a person told me that they run 30, 40, 50 or more miles a week but have never experienced a runner's high and even worse, that they hate the whole experience, I would seriously doubt their honesty and/ or sanity.

    Many folks, even professional apologists like Hank Hanegraaff (the Bible Answer Man) - assert that anyone who quits the faith was never a "true" Christian because by definition, true Christians can't lose their faith. I don't find that line of reasoning very convincing.
    I quit that debate years ago. It's a no win situation. Let each person be convinced in their own mind.

    Steve
    Last edited by Ps 27:1; 01-11-2012 at 04:52 PM.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by Ps 27:1 View Post
    Hey there Steve,

    As I mentioned to Timmy, that sounds like the "No True Scotsman" fallacy to me. Is there any way to know if anyone has ever "consummated his marriage to Jesus?" No? Then it is a meaningless criterion.

    Hence my usage of "guess". Back to my analogy of runners. If a person told me that they run 30, 40, 50 or more miles a week but have never experienced a runner's high and even worse, that they hate the whole experience, I would seriously doubt their honesty and/ or sanity.

    Many folks, even professional apologists like Hank Hanegraaff (the Bible Answer Man) - assert that anyone who quits the faith was never a "true" Christian because by definition, true Christians can't lose their faith. I don't find that line of reasoning very convincing.

    I quit that debate years ago. It's a no win situation. Let each person be convinced in their own mind.
    Hey there Steve,

    I hope you don't think I'm trying to debate these points. I was just sharing my point of view. I agree that anybody lacking any "Christian highs" after years of "being a Christian" probably missed the boat, but then again, we all know we can't make such judgments so your response, that he had not "consummated his marriage to Jesus," is probably neither here nor there.

    Myself, I had continuous years of "Christian highs" in the 90s. I thought it would never end. I plan on writing up the reasons I became a Christian. Many of the reasons still move me a lot, others not so much. One relates to Psalm 27 (your forum name). I was 19 and pretty messed up. An evangelist named John began hounding me and took me to a "Praise the Lord" festival in Vancouver Wa. It's an interesting side-note that arch-charlatan fake-ex-satanist Mike Warnke entertained me at that event. In any case, after a solid day of hanging out with thousands of charismatic Christians singing and praying and laughing and trying to convince me of Christ, I finally went and sat by myself with an NASB Bible that John had given me. I was upset because I felt that God was ignoring me while he was "talking" to everyone else (or so they said, anyway). I wasn't thinking I was "praying" because I was actually complaining "Why don't you talk to me, God?". I suddenly felt as if I was told "READ PSALM 27." I don't recall hearing a voice - it was more like the command was just inserted in my head. So I opened the Bible and found Psalm 27. I liked the words but they didn't mean much to me until I came to verse 10: "For my father and my mother have forsaken me, But the LORD will take me up." The thing is, my mom and dad divorced when I was a baby, and I went to live with my dad, my two sisters, and his mother. That lasted till I was about 3 and dad remarried. They divorced when I was ten. Then dad killed himself when I was 14. So sitting there complaining to God and I get Psalm 27. It pierced my heart. I believed that God had spoken to me. That was the first time I really "believed" in Jesus.

    I think that experience was "valid" in the sense that I was given knowledge from a "higher source" but I don't feel it means Christianity is true because of all the problems with that religion.

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    227
    Hi Richard.
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    Hey there Steve,

    I hope you don't think I'm trying to debate these points.
    No, I wasn't. I appreciate you sharing what you did about your past. It must have been hard. I had a blessed chidlhood with 2 very loving parents. My mother is still alive at 86. I knew Ps 27:1 was important to you from the "about you" page of the BW site. The number 271 is central to what happened to me last year, but the words are important, too. I don't want to hijack this thread, so I'll continue in the one I started.

    be blessed,
    Steve

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by Ps 27:1 View Post
    Hi Richard.


    No, I wasn't. I appreciate you sharing what you did about your past. It must have been hard. I had a blessed chidlhood with 2 very loving parents. My mother is still alive at 86. I knew Ps 27:1 was important to you from the "about you" page of the BW site. The number 271 is central to what happened to me last year, but the words are important, too. I don't want to hijack this thread, so I'll continue in the one I started.

    be blessed,
    Steve
    Ah, hijack all you want! Or start another. We're pretty laid back around here.

    Yes, it was hard. But that made the Psalm 27 thing all the more meaningful. It really knocked my socks off.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    227
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    Ah, hijack all you want! Or start another. We're pretty laid back around here.

    Yes, it was hard. But that made the Psalm 27 thing all the more meaningful. It really knocked my socks off.
    Thanks, I'm all for laid back. One of the things I like about your forum.

    Steve

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Tellus
    Posts
    741
    It's me again:
    Tim Tmmy Tim Tim

    How ya' doing RAM?

    This text was written over the course of the past few days as time afforded.
    It comes w/o edit, and it's hoped that at least there be no gaps.
    It is sent incomplete.



    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Timmy View Post
    Hi Richard,

    Sorry for the inconsistencies. Dustbin's thunder was a bit unsettling...in concern for him, not so much for the way he expressed it. He works with the capacity he posesses to make a form of informed decisions.
    (We have to believe in freewill. We have no choice. He probably just wants to be different just like everyone else.)
    No problem Timmy, you didn't seem too "inconsistent" to me.

    And yes, Dusty's thunder was a bit "loud' and that can be distracting. And I don't agree with his atheism - I think that is as foolish as what he is opposing. There are two kinds of atheism, one is perfectly logical (a person who does not have a belief in any particular god) while the other goes beyond reason (the assertion that there is no god).

    I like your funny "we have no choice but to believe in freewill."

    I think we both do and don't have "freewill" - we do in the sense that we have choice, and we don't in the sense that the choice itself is determined by many things other than our own selves. But whatever the truth, the concept of freewill is just another philosophical rat's nest of tangled words. The problem is probably generated by the intrinsic limitations of our language.

    Mayhaps i note far more inconsistencies when in critical consistent reflection i attempt to tear apart everything stated. In deconstructionalisation, ractice makes perfect and perfect practice makes everything of little merit. (i do this often because textual criticism is hard to come by...for me at least. You are one of few exceptional folks to somewhat negate this rule of thumb and it is greatly appreciated.

    i often come off as autoritarian to many, though extremely friendly. Many just don't know what to think of Timmy. When on all fours rubbing my side against others leg,some people just don't take too kindly to that feline characteristic, so in pack animal fashion, i attempt to lick their face...when instead of brushing my side on said limb, it may have been better to pull it out from under them while grounded.

    Some think me a head in the clouds man, and to this is said, "YES! EXACTLY! However my feet, and sometimes even my hands, are on the ground.
    (Some would rather just take me to the veteranarian and put this manimal to sleep; or if they're adversely excited, put a bullet in this brain.)

    The funny ditty about 'absolute free-wil'l is not mine, but one of those quotes from Singer, and was previously used as a sig. line.
    i like it, too.

    My own CURRENT notion of free-will is that it is a predestinated free-will, kinda' just like you explain it but not exactly. i think of it more in terms of our own self-deception thinking we are free to do as we choose, however, the parameters defining life and movement for every individual far exceed what we are even capable of comprehending, much less doing in the short span of human living.


    BTAIM (BeThatAsItMay(be)), there are more inconsistencies here than most will ever percieve to realize.
    i heard a voice telling me, "What business do you have defending G-d? i guess you think He can't stand without His own two feet?"
    Then again, i have to live with my selfs and though they run away from time two times, it's not really like i have to ever find myself, because in the immortal words of Buckaroo Bonzai, "Wherever you go, there you are."

    Dusty, on the other hand suffer from a sado-masochistic syndrome uncommonly known as PSD [Parochial School Derilectionization].

    My own youngest daughter almost suffered at the hands of a (former-now-married-)nun who expected here to participate with the rest of the class in going through the rosary. Timmy was so anticipatorily moved upon finding this out, he dressed in his finest three piece, and made his way to that Catholic High School in anticipation of bitch-slapping that narrowminded prig. (Isn't it funny how nice teacher's get when you babaliciously wallow in the quagmires of intellectual mediocrity and then they say something like, "oh, now i understand your perspective and will account for that from now on" all the while looking at you like a cow at a new gate or a dog at a new pan?

    Timmy himself was confined to a parocial Christian Reformed school for a season, when the public administrators 3 months later realized who was responsible for the repetetive power outages at the H.S. causing school to end abruptly on several mornings, just because of wanting another and another day of no classes being oh so bored with it all.
    At that parochial school, the teacher of his xian religion class got more than what was bargained for. Through question after question from Timmy, it was repeatedly bourne out in many ways, through both historic data and scripture that John Calvin was a humanist in the guise of xianity and his T.U.L.I.P. points of Calvinism did not stand up to the scritiny of the whole council of God, the El-biB.

    Please don't get this wrong.
    It's just like you, and also a certain A.C., of whom Marylyn Monson repeated those immortal words, singing, "It's not God I hate; but the god of the people I hated."



    Encouragement is sensed through reassurance in "your doing fine, my friend," my friend.
    How can your encouraging encouragement be anything but more encouraging?
    Satisfaction is recieved throughout your correspondences and those little blips about feeling free to blabber and blather, even if perchance slober might find it's way to the page...

    ONVORTEN!








    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Timmy View Post
    Here's that portions of which is mostly questioned:

    Dusty misconstrues alot.
    (Though there are more things, here are two immediately noted issues)

    1.) Reading the Bible is not what makes one understand it.
    No wonder it is boring to him.

    2.) God does not advocate child sacrafice, sex slavery, slavery, genocide, etc.
    (These things are only stated in scripture regarding the irreversible human condition, and how God allows these things because of what occured when all humanity transgressed in Adamah. Yeshua came to change our hearts. He did not abolish any systems of government and religion. With "re-gene-ing" (regeneration), comes the change of heart and with it the change in the way people do the things we do.)

    ...and then here is what you said Rich:
    I think you misconstrued Dusty.

    1) He said that the Bible was boring when he was a Christian, but that it is a lot more interesting now as an atheist.

    2) Your statement is false. God COMMANDED genocide and the taking of virgins and he regulated (didn't prohibit) slavery, etc.


    Timmy sez:
    i think you might think i misconstrue dusty alot more than i really do. i think i am more guilty of misconstruing G_d's will and ways.

    on 1) What does he mean that he "was" a xian? He may have followed a certain regimen that he thought made him a xian, but it doesn't sound at all--based on watching all of the cult ov dustbin's videos--like he ever was a christian. Yeshua probably never had a deep abiding relationship with him.
    Well Timmy, that is what Christians usually say when a Christian leaves the faith. It seems like the "No True Scotsman" fallacy to me. There is absolutely no objective test to tell who does or does not have a "deep abiding relationship" with Christ so it's a meaningless criterion.
    Ok, so you say it's post hoc ergo .

    How's this then:
    "Do not love the world or the things that belong to the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in him. For everything that belongs to the world — the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride in one’s lifestyle — is not from the Father, but is from the world. And the world with its lust is passing away, aa but the one who does God’s will ab remains forever. Children, it is the last hour. And as you have heard, 'Antichrist ae is coming,' even now many antichrists have come. We know from this that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they did not belong to us; for if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us. However, they went out so that it might be made clear that none of them belongs to us. (I John 2.15-19)

    You might just be dis-servicing yourself considering Tiummy one of those xians who usually says innanities without viable proof. I John is foundational as to understanding where both Timmy individually and others actually stand with G-d. If Dusty's YouTube video on "American's Love Incest" doesn't speak for itself, consider the above quite from I Jn. imperative to my own understanding in relation to determinations stated.

    ( Groundless critique, hardly ever, though possible inconsistencies exist, NTL.






    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Timmy View Post
    on 2) TOUCHE'!!!

    Yes the word advocate is false, however the thought and intent explained behind it, can you really say that all that is false, and if so, how so?...doesn't the "thunder" word grab your attention to read further? (It certainly did me upon rereading the blasted rant after writing it.)... but if that word "advocate" is corrected by admitance of error, and saying something like: "what i meant to say was "take-pleasure-in", does that statement or what follows it still remain false?
    (You are oh so right: i deserved that and that sentence deserves an edit, if for nothing else, to make things quite a bit more palatable than dustbin's 40+% foul mouthed vocabulary.)

    Here is the issue: God is overly abundant in loving kindness and extremely gracious. He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, yet the person who is too proud to thank God or glorify Him is given up to their own demise.
    Why would God do anything for a person who choses to defy Him and rebel?
    What obligation does God, who gives all things existence, owe at all to anything at all?
    I was not really hanging up on the word "advocate." Your assertion that "God is overly abundant in loving kindness and extremely gracious" does not cohere with the other things the Bible teaches about God. There is no "loving kindness" in ordering genocide or the taking of 32,000 virgins to be distributed amongst the soldiers. And neither is there any mercy in the concept of eternal damnation. This is the problem of the Bible - it does not present a coherent picture of God. Yes, it says many wonderful things (God is love, God is light, his mercy endures forever) but then it directly contradicts that with things that are horrible.

    You ask " Why would God do anything for a person who choses to defy Him and rebel?" ~ Your question is based on a faulty view of God as "overlord" who dominates everyone and demands "obedience." That is a Dominator Model which is the source of all the pain and bloodshed in the history of the world. It is a patriarchal view of reality that is totally erroneous in my estimation. Why would you think that God is like a human dictator giving commands and ordering eternal death for those who refuse to submit? I know that the Bible presents that view, but why do you believe it? It is the view of God in the form of a Bronze-age tribal warrior god of ignorant people.

    You ask "What obligation does God, who gives all things existence, owe at all to anything at all?" ~ First, love obligates God. Second, God is responsible for everything he created. Third, why would you entertain such a question? It's like asking "Why would a Father owe anything at all to his child?"

    Now the following is not argument per se, but rather trying to understand the basis for current ideas held by you:

    Dominator model?
    How about, being all in all, nothing exists without Him?

    Your post in the "Demons" discussion quoted the Greek philosophy used by Paul on Mars hill: "In him we live and move and have our being." This is said to acknowledge your own understanding of God beyond all dualisms. (Can it be asked, what is good and what is evil relative to this...and if scripture is rejected as the standard towards good and evil, is there any absolute standard of good and evil?)

    [Have you studied any Tanya? It is not expected as you are not Chassidic...then again, there are things there also thouroughly disagreed with here, having their basis through false assumptions superceeding Torah by accepting the comments of the Rebbe in Kabbalah over Torah.

    The basic concept (and this should probably be in the Judaism category)
    --...and BTW, nice thread on the BWBlog spot to the out of place Messianic(?i don't think so?) Cindy with your response on 9-12-11. Reading those all through one evening, coming to her text, i'm wonderin', is this the same one under guise, who was priveledged to rise as that oh so special grand inquisitor of yours?--
    is that there really is no other reality but G-d.

    Creation occurs through G-d speech. God spoke 10 words and the world comes to be, but not only in the past tense but even so in the present tense G-d speaks and all things continue to exist...or how's this?

    By faith we understand
    that the universe was created by God’s Word,
    so that what is seen
    has been made
    from things that are not visible.
    He is the image of the invisible God,
    the firstborn above all creation.
    For everything was created by Him,
    in heaven and on earth,
    the visible and the invisible,
    whether thrones or dominions
    or rulers or authorities —
    all things have been created through Him and for Him.
    He is before all things,
    and by Him all things hold together.
    (Heb. 11.3/Col. 1.15-17)

    Hypothetically, if the Word of G-d ceased, the worlds would cease to exist; because the world on it's own is not an entity.

    When a stone sculptor forms a figure from stone, the figure already existed in the stone. The artist only shaped and defined it, but when done working to bring this our, the artist can walk away because the figure has an existence seperate from the artist.

    The artist merely changed the form, but G-d created the world out of nothing so it has no existence of it's own, no right of being, nothing. It cannot stand on it's own two feet. This constant creation of what exists and transformation of energy to matter is constant. (Ask any physicist.)

    All things that are being constantly upheld by the word of His power are merely forms of energy, some seemingly more solid than others. All this is nothing short of a miracle, so that all that exists is an outward expression of the miraculous power of the Word of G-d. This powerful force ceasing to create would revert all seperations of energy from matter into light ultimately into nothingness.

    Nothing of anything really exists on it's own right...and the notion of that Dominator model doesn't fit the comprehensive scheme knowing the whole universe is the outward expression of God's considerations.


    Should i go into the cultural family norms of let's say, the general rules of home life up until "The Enlightenment," such as Greek or Arabic or Indian culture?

    Here, it's thought that Bill Cosby has a clearer perspective on this than most. While relating his relationship to his father while growing up, when being confronted for somehow--is not exactly recalled--stepping over the line, his dad says,"SON! I brought you into this world. I'll take you out."

    It is not really like asking "Why would a Father owe anything at all to his child?"

    Here it is seen more of an obligation of man to function in the world according to rules of conduct for the best of all concerned, and far to many only look at the end-result immediate picture to the neglect of what let up to it. In all of human history, this seems to never have been the case...even under the most stringent conditions.

    Anyone can babble on about logic and reason, but when the heart of the matter is left out of the picture, our ignorance to our true condition (no matter what happens to us or others by whomever's determination it occured, the problem still remains and we blindside ourselves negating the fact that there is far more to the human genome than rationality and morphic fields.
    (Susan Sontag's notion of creating a shadow world of meaning comes to mind.)


    What do you think concerning Yeshua's words in Luke 13.1-9:
    "At that time, a some people came and reported to Him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices.

    And He [Yeshua] responded to them, 'Do you think that these Galileans were more sinful than all Galileans because they suffered these things? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all perish as well! Or those 18 that the tower in Siloam fell on and killed — do you think they were more sinful than all the people who live in Jerusalem? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all perish as well! '

    And He told this parable: 'A man had a fig tree that was planted in his vineyard. He came looking for fruit on it and found none. He told the vineyard worker, ‘Listen, for three years I have come looking for fruit on this fig tree and haven’t found any. Cut it down! Why should it even waste the soil? ’

    'But he replied to him, ‘Sir, leave it this year also, until I dig around it and fertilize it. Perhaps it will bear fruit next year, but if not, you can cut it down.’ '


    Consider Noah Zark and 120 years of preaching and warning (about something that was unheard of--Rain? What's that?The earth flooded by water?) by Noah, Enoch and other family members prior the deluge...or do you consider Gilgamesh and other secular records more valid than the detailed accounts found in several Hebraic pieces of literature?
    (BTW, that video you posted is hilarious...and for the 9+ years of Timmy's incessant violin practice and orchestration, the Black Violins gotZ it going on.)

    Isn't it more like G-d is saying, " I make the rules 'cause made all of this and you to function here. I know what's best for you--I made you and know your very frame, and even more, what you will do before you were ever born?"

    Please do not speculate about things where all the facts are not in. There is too much left unknown before just conclusions can be drawn concerning many things in the scriptures. (Remember, even with best guestimations, It's as if you are saying those people did not deserve to die, yet you just might not understand the reason why.

    Recall G-d's rejection of the first earthly king of Israel, and instructions to His prophet to find another:
    "Samuel did what the LORD directed and went to Bethlehem.

    When the elders of the town met him, they trembled and asked, 'Do you come in peace? '

    'In peace,' he replied. 'I’ve come to sacrifice to the LORD. Consecrate yourselves and come with me to the sacrifice.'

    Then he consecrated Jesse and his sons and invited them to the sacrifice.

    When they arrived, Samuel saw Eliab and said, 'Certainly the LORD’s anointed one is here before Him.'

    But the LORD said to Samuel, 'Do not look at his appearance or his stature, because I have rejected him. Man does not see what the LORD sees, for man sees what is visible, but the LORD sees the heart.'

    This seems to be the issue in question, hunh?

    Do you really think G-d changes to adjust to the times as if He really needs to keep up with what we have planned?
    ...so why can we look for the same principles in effect in the past occuring as repeated through history, and the only difference is the scenery?

    Because i fear, trust, and love G-d, i do not doubt what is written of Him:
    -being a prejudiced heretical racist
    -loving only a chosen few
    -creating good
    -creating evil
    and so much more...

    If you will, it's asked that you look back to beginnings in Genesis and consider how God dealt with Adam after transgressing, and as well the account of Cain murdering Abel. Please look at what G-d did and ask yourself why. Could you be so loving and kind and then ask yourself what is the end result of anyone choosing to judge G-d?..but wait, there's more...

    What do you think God should do? Are you saying that because he does not meet our standards we can absolve our self from Him?

    Isn't it funny how rejecting whatever (is revealed to us) of God, we end up focusing in thought and deed on these very things?

    Isaiah 45.6-12:
    "...I am Yahweh, and there is no other.
    I form light and create darkness,
    I make success and create disaster;
    I, Yahweh, do all these things.
    Heavens, sprinkle from above,
    and let the skies shower righteousness.
    Let the earth open up
    so that salvation will sprout
    and righteousness will spring up with it.
    I, Yahweh, have created it.
    Woe to the one who argues with his Maker —
    one clay pot among many.
    Does clay say to the one forming it,
    ‘What are you making?’
    Or does your work say,
    ‘He has no hands’?
    How absurd is the one who says to his father,
    ‘What are you fathering?’
    or to his mother,
    ‘What are you giving birth to? ’
    This is what the LORD,
    the Holy One of Israel and its Maker, says:
    'Ask Me what is to happen to My sons,
    and instruct Me about the work of My hands.
    I made the earth,
    and created man on it.
    It was My hands that stretched out the heavens,
    and I commanded all their host.


    It is not just the other nations that suffer God's jugdement.
    Let's get this straight.
    The children of Israel suffer more by God's judgement than any other nation,
    so if there remains complaint against Him, one would do better starting there.

    Look at what Amos 3.1-2 says:
    Listen to this message that the LORD has spoken against you, Israelites,
    against the entire clan that I brought from the land of Egypt:
    I have known only you
    out of all the clans of the earth;
    therefore,
    I will all the more punish you for all your iniquities.

    Tell me what other nation has suffered like ours, both now even onto bygone times?

    In Jeremiah, God says to Israel's children:
    "I will scatter you over the whole face of the earth, after bringing the Babylonians into S. Judah to rape, murder, kill the unborn in their mother's bellies, pilliage and plunder...isn't that sin?
    (...but by whose standards?)
    Millenia have passed and Israel for most intents and purposes still has not re-gathered...and all the continued suffering even today that has been the result.

    Can we say G_D is not fair?
    i don't think so.

    God puts us in these corrupt carcasses where you can never do right, and giving you rules that "Thou shalt not" and you will anyway...
    or Adamah and Isha created with the ability to sin, then set off in Eden with a tree placed right smack in the middle they are told not to eat from it or die.

    Ya know, maybe, just maybe, there is more to human history than the reasons and logic used to determine our relation to what we can percieve of the world?
    (Man looks on the outward appearances, and we see God has ordained some to destruction.)





    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Timmy View Post
    (When do we do this: give pure mercy? Maybe possibly at times for a family member or two, but how far does our mercy stretch?)
    Yeshua says, "Blessd are the merciful for they shall recieve mercy...for if you do not forgive, God will not forgive you."
    I give pure mercy all the time to people I meet on the street, to friends and family members, and even to my pets. Why don't you? And more importantly, why doesn't God? Think about it! He is omnipotent and yet he doesn't even bother, as a general rule, to answer prayers. We are all on our own down here when it comes to the issues of life. God was perfectly happy to let people beg and pray and cry and plead to be healed from simple bacterial infections, but God let them suffer and die no matter how much the cried to him. Then dirty rotten atheist scientists discovered penicillin and so sinful humans saved millions of lives that God was perfectly willing to let die. Obviously, if God is real, he does not want us to believe in him or trust him to take care of us in this life. He has done everything - meaning nothing - to ensure that no one with any intelligence would believe in him or the promises in the Bible that say we should trust him to take care of us. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that God never answers prayers. I don't have that kind of knowledge. But I do know that God does not, as a general rule, answer prayers, and that means, by definition, that God is unreliable, i.e. UNTRUSTWORTHY. Nobody can trust God for anything real that can be measured or "counted upon."

    It's thought this difference of G-d's mercy comarative to human mercy was hardly explained and is as a result being misunderstood.
    The attempt here is to keep it brief, though this is hardly possible, as everything G-d does, whether we consider it good, bad, or just plain ugly is all part and parcel in His mercy. (It was MY INCONSISTENCY to focus on just the things we believe to be nice.)
    God has and does give loving kindness daily to billions who have chosen to make war against Him as enemies in--the Biblical sense of the word--hatred.
    It's meant, do we ever continue to do this: love our enemies and bless those who oppose us? (This is the kind of mercy intended as meant being of G-d.

    i do not believe people will burn in hell eternally because all the Bible tells us is that it is the fires of it are eternal, in the sense of permanent results. One fellow recently became extremely rialed up after proving the K(ommon) Greek, from the passage in Jude that says those in Sodom were burned with eternal fire is the same word used in other places regarding punishment.

    When Yeshua says to not fear those who can destroy the body, but Him who can cast both body and soul(life) in hell fire, then also speaking of perishing therein, was He lying: "Woe to you Tyre and Sidon, for if the miracles done here were done in Sodom and Gomorrah..?"

    Why is being cast into the lake of fire called the second death if every entity lives in hell forever? How does anything continue to exist eternally seperated from G-d? If all the various entities are really burning forever , and not permanently burned up, as should now be understood, how can there ever come a new heaven and a new earth where "the former things are remembered no more?"

    On this note, how can some recieve greater or lesser punishment if hell is merely fire...and please do not go into an exegesis on hades, abbaddon,Gey.Hinnom, Tophet and so on.

    Why can't we see G-d as merciful in causing the death of some by preventing more severe judgment?



    The discovery of penecillin or any other development towards human well-being is not in opposition to God, is it? Does God take glee in the death of the wicked?
    [On another note, one Q, and just one comment concerning your thesis re:the Evolution of the Bible wheel:
    Question:
    In your text, there was seen no specific NT designation of order concerning the Byzantine text, though this is the basis of the N.T. order used today. Is this elsewhere in reference materials cited or is the Syriatic somehow an encompassment of that?????

    Comment:
    Natural selection should not be pitted against developmental and philogenic constraints as though these things can be compartmentalized to form a duality. Selection -vs- constraint is a farcical dichotomy. Selection can only select from growing alternatives, and without entropy and continual development through this opposition, nothing happens. To ask why the Bible in the Western world is ordered in such and such a way is meaningless unless there is something to compare it to (Such as the Hebrew Masoretic Tanakh & Byzantine (or whatever other ordering) -vs- the Latin Vulgate, etc.
    (Along these lines, it is also false to assume that the Bible Wheel did not develop by natural selection simply because the functions of the various books were altered over the course of time. (For example, consider that the book of Ruth was once part of Judges.))


    Anyway, bak to the so-called wicked atheist: G-d speaks to a wayward prophet through a jackass, He obviously does and can do more through those who think they will deny Him than those who do nothing. (Hot or cold?)

    You have brought up issues that are seldom discussed with others.

    Thank you sir, may i have another might be in order if the remainder of your statements to me were answered back. It is hoped this will be possible later tomorrow, beginning with the issue prayer.

    Bless you sir,

    Little Timmy
    The mind grows by taking in
    :Mesiras Nefesh:
    THE HEART GROWS BY GIVING OUT

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    227
    Quote Originally Posted by Timmy View Post
    i do not believe people will burn in hell eternally because all the Bible tells us is that it is the fires of it are eternal, in the sense of permanent results. One fellow recently became extremely rialed up after proving the K(ommon) Greek, from the passage in Jude that says those in Sodom were burned with eternal fire is the same word used in other places regarding punishment.

    When Yeshua says to not fear those who can destroy the body, but Him who can cast both body and soul(life) in hell fire, then also speaking of perishing therein, was He lying: "Woe to you Tyre and Sidon, for if the miracles done here were done in Sodom and Gomorrah..?"

    Why is being cast into the lake of fire called the second death if every entity lives in hell forever? How does anything continue to exist eternally seperated from G-d? If all the various entities are really burning forever , and not permanently burned up, as should now be understood, how can there ever come a new heaven and a new earth where "the former things are remembered no more?"

    On this note, how can some recieve greater or lesser punishment if hell is merely fire...and please do not go into an exegesis on hades, abbaddon,Gey.Hinnom, Tophet and so on.

    Why can't we see G-d as merciful in causing the death of some by preventing more severe judgment?

    Well said, Timmy. When I came into this truth in the early 80's it was like scales falling off my eyes. God has had to remind me of my own blindness when I get impatient with relatives and friends that still believe in the immortality of the soul in hell. If hell is separation from God, who is sustaining them and for what purpose? It's one of the doctrines of Babylon. It makes a mockery of God's love and justice.

    Be Blessed,

    Steve

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by Timmy View Post
    It's me again:
    Tim Tmmy Tim Tim

    How ya' doing RAM?

    This text was written over the course of the past few days as time afforded.
    It comes w/o edit, and it's hoped that at least there be no gaps.
    It is sent incomplete.
    Hey there Timmy Tim Tim Tim!

    I love your new avatar:

    Name:  fly2.PNG
Views: 38
Size:  47.2 KB




    Quote Originally Posted by Timmy View Post
    Mayhaps i note far more inconsistencies when in critical consistent reflection i attempt to tear apart everything stated. In deconstructionalisation, ractice makes perfect and perfect practice makes everything of little merit. (i do this often because textual criticism is hard to come by...for me at least. You are one of few exceptional folks to somewhat negate this rule of thumb and it is greatly appreciated.

    i often come off as autoritarian to many, though extremely friendly. Many just don't know what to think of Timmy. When on all fours rubbing my side against others leg,some people just don't take too kindly to that feline characteristic, so in pack animal fashion, i attempt to lick their face...when instead of brushing my side on said limb, it may have been better to pull it out from under them while grounded.
    Maybe they realized not your friendly feline intention and felt perhaps as if you were a lonely canine a looking for love! Can't be too careful with the unintended implications when communicating with such a limited bandwidth as these combinations of 26 characters strung in a line!

    Name:  dog_humping_mans_leg.jpg
Views: 37
Size:  9.6 KB



    Quote Originally Posted by Timmy View Post
    Some think me a head in the clouds man, and to this is said, "YES! EXACTLY! However my feet, and sometimes even my hands, are on the ground.
    (Some would rather just take me to the veteranarian and put this manimal to sleep; or if they're adversely excited, put a bullet in this brain.)

    The funny ditty about 'absolute free-wil'l is not mine, but one of those quotes from Singer, and was previously used as a sig. line.
    i like it, too.

    My own CURRENT notion of free-will is that it is a predestinated free-will, kinda' just like you explain it but not exactly. i think of it more in terms of our own self-deception thinking we are free to do as we choose, however, the parameters defining life and movement for every individual far exceed what we are even capable of comprehending, much less doing in the short span of human living.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	how-to-win-at-bingo.gif 
Views:	34 
Size:	40.2 KB 
ID:	262

    That's pretty much the problem. I didn't choose where I was born, who my parents were, or the language consisting of frozen metaphors encrusted with thousands of years of assumptions that is my only means of thinking or communicating. How could anyone think of themselves as "free" when trapped in such a prision?

    Quote Originally Posted by Timmy View Post
    BTAIM (BeThatAsItMay(be)), there are more inconsistencies here than most will ever percieve to realize.
    i heard a voice telling me, "What business do you have defending G-d? i guess you think He can't stand without His own two feet?"
    Then again, i have to live with my selfs and though they run away from time two times, it's not really like i have to ever find myself, because in the immortal words of Buckaroo Bonzai, "Wherever you go, there you are."
    I would tend to agree. Folks are not really defending God anyway - they are defending their own ideas about God! I trust the magnitude of that difference is plain to see.

    Quote Originally Posted by Timmy View Post
    Dusty, on the other hand suffer from a sado-masochistic syndrome uncommonly known as PSD [Parochial School Derilectionization].
    Ah ... I think he's just venting after discovering that he'd been fooled for 30 years. Gotta cut him some slack, eh?

    Quote Originally Posted by Timmy View Post
    My own youngest daughter almost suffered at the hands of a (former-now-married-)nun who expected here to participate with the rest of the class in going through the rosary. Timmy was so anticipatorily moved upon finding this out, he dressed in his finest three piece, and made his way to that Catholic High School in anticipation of bitch-slapping that narrowminded prig. (Isn't it funny how nice teacher's get when you babaliciously wallow in the quagmires of intellectual mediocrity and then they say something like, "oh, now i understand your perspective and will account for that from now on" all the while looking at you like a cow at a new gate or a dog at a new pan?

    Timmy himself was confined to a parocial Christian Reformed school for a season, when the public administrators 3 months later realized who was responsible for the repetetive power outages at the H.S. causing school to end abruptly on several mornings, just because of wanting another and another day of no classes being oh so bored with it all.
    At that parochial school, the teacher of his xian religion class got more than what was bargained for. Through question after question from Timmy, it was repeatedly bourne out in many ways, through both historic data and scripture that John Calvin was a humanist in the guise of xianity and his T.U.L.I.P. points of Calvinism did not stand up to the scritiny of the whole council of God, the El-biB.

    Please don't get this wrong.
    It's just like you, and also a certain A.C., of whom Marylyn Monson repeated those immortal words, singing, "It's not God I hate; but the god of the people I hated."
    Ah yes, the picture is becoming clearer. I'm surprised a Calvinist would let you ask questions. I'd be even more surprized if you made any progress showing him his theology was not consistent with the "full counsel of God" since the Bible has plenty of Calvinist verses. Predestination? Plainly stated. None can believe unless elected by God? Plainly stated. Some are predistinated for hell? Plainly stated. I think Calvinism wrong, but I also think it has lots of Biblical support.

    Quote Originally Posted by Timmy View Post
    Encouragement is sensed through reassurance in "your doing fine, my friend," my friend.
    How can your encouraging encouragement be anything but more encouraging?
    Satisfaction is recieved throughout your correspondences and those little blips about feeling free to blabber and blather, even if perchance slober might find it's way to the page...

    ONVORTEN!
    I'm glad you feel encouraged! It can be an discouraging world at times - especially on internet forums ... and especially on internet forums where we talk of religion!

    Quote Originally Posted by Timmy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM
    Well Timmy, that is what Christians usually say when a Christian leaves the faith. It seems like the "No True Scotsman" fallacy to me. There is absolutely no objective test to tell who does or does not have a "deep abiding relationship" with Christ so it's a meaningless criterion.
    Ok, so you say it's post hoc ergo .

    How's this then:
    "Do not love the world or the things that belong to the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in him. For everything that belongs to the world — the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride in one’s lifestyle — is not from the Father, but is from the world. And the world with its lust is passing away, aa but the one who does God’s will ab remains forever. Children, it is the last hour. And as you have heard, 'Antichrist ae is coming,' even now many antichrists have come. We know from this that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they did not belong to us; for if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us. However, they went out so that it might be made clear that none of them belongs to us. (I John 2.15-19)

    You might just be dis-servicing yourself considering Tiummy one of those xians who usually says innanities without viable proof. I John is foundational as to understanding where both Timmy individually and others actually stand with G-d. If Dusty's YouTube video on "American's Love Incest" doesn't speak for itself, consider the above quite from I Jn. imperative to my own understanding in relation to determinations stated.

    ( Groundless critique, hardly ever, though possible inconsistencies exist, NTL.
    I don't understand that verse. It seems very strange in light of other verses, specifically:

    "For God so loved the world" + "If anyone loves the world, the love for the father is not in him" = direct contradiction.

    It's like everything else in the Bible. It really doesn't make much sense when you think about it. We are commanded to love everyone when God himself hates most people sufficiently to send them to an eternal Aushwitz that makes Hitler look like Mother Theresa?

    It's all confusion based on contradictory assumptions.

    I'm not familiar with Dusty's "American's Love Incest" is that another video he made?

    Quote Originally Posted by Timmy View Post
    Now the following is not argument per se, but rather trying to understand the basis for current ideas held by you:

    Dominator model?
    How about, being all in all, nothing exists without Him?
    The Dominator Model is God as OTHER who is also DICTATOR.

    Holistic Model everyone derives their being from God, but we are all free in the most fundamental sense. A good analogy would be the Top-down dictatorship like the old Soviet Union Communism vs. the Capitalist Free Enterprise system where everyone is free to do their own thing. The one is very "clunky" and "herky-jerky" and unable to do anything with any grace because one person (or committee) at the top is trying to control everything, whereas the other is like nature and everyone works together (or not) but we have the great strength that comes from many free creatures making thier own decisions.

    The idea of God as the Ground of Being does not imply a top-down dictatorship.

    Quote Originally Posted by Timmy View Post
    Your post in the "Demons" discussion quoted the Greek philosophy used by Paul on Mars hill: "In him we live and move and have our being." This is said to acknowledge your own understanding of God beyond all dualisms. (Can it be asked, what is good and what is evil relative to this...and if scripture is rejected as the standard towards good and evil, is there any absolute standard of good and evil?)
    The fact that Ultimate Reality (God) is non-dual does not mean that dualities like light and dark, up and down, good and evil, do not "exist" at our level of consciousness. It only means that they are not the "ultimate reality."

    As for looking to the Bible for moral instructions ... say what? I'd do that if I wanted 32,000 sex slaves (Numbers 31), or 300 wives and 700 concubines (Solomon), or to be free to steal a man's wife and kill her husband with the only consequence being that the child dies (David) ... in other words, do you really think that the Bible teachs true morality?

    Quote Originally Posted by Timmy View Post
    [Have you studied any Tanya? It is not expected as you are not Chassidic...then again, there are things there also thouroughly disagreed with here, having their basis through false assumptions superceeding Torah by accepting the comments of the Rebbe in Kabbalah over Torah.
    I own a beautiful bi-lingual copy of the Likutei Amarim - Tanya. It's got some interesting stuff in it. It's from my "old days" when I was studying Kabbalah before falling into fundamentalist Christianity. I'm glad I never felt a need to burn it along with all my Crowley books.

    And yes, the Kabbalistic rabbis make up endless mountains of ridiculous crap. Did you know that the Zohar teaches that David did not sin in the matter of Bathsheba? How's that for insane? It says that Uriah gave her a bill of divorce before going to battle, and a bunch of other insane crap. Religion really ruins people's minds.

    Quote Originally Posted by Timmy View Post
    The basic concept (and this should probably be in the Judaism category)
    --...and BTW, nice thread on the BWBlog spot to the out of place Messianic(?i don't think so?) Cindy with your response on 9-12-11. Reading those all through one evening, coming to her text, i'm wonderin', is this the same one under guise, who was priveledged to rise as that oh so special grand inquisitor of yours?--
    is that there really is no other reality but G-d.
    Do you recall which post the comment was under?

    Quote Originally Posted by Timmy View Post
    Creation occurs through G-d speech. God spoke 10 words and the world comes to be, but not only in the past tense but even so in the present tense G-d speaks and all things continue to exist...or how's this?

    By faith we understand
    that the universe was created by God’s Word,
    so that what is seen
    has been made
    from things that are not visible.
    He is the image of the invisible God,
    the firstborn above all creation.
    For everything was created by Him,
    in heaven and on earth,
    the visible and the invisible,
    whether thrones or dominions
    or rulers or authorities —
    all things have been created through Him and for Him.
    He is before all things,
    and by Him all things hold together.
    (Heb. 11.3/Col. 1.15-17)

    Hypothetically, if the Word of G-d ceased, the worlds would cease to exist; because the world on it's own is not an entity.

    When a stone sculptor forms a figure from stone, the figure already existed in the stone. The artist only shaped and defined it, but when done working to bring this our, the artist can walk away because the figure has an existence seperate from the artist.

    The artist merely changed the form, but G-d created the world out of nothing so it has no existence of it's own, no right of being, nothing. It cannot stand on it's own two feet. This constant creation of what exists and transformation of energy to matter is constant. (Ask any physicist.)

    All things that are being constantly upheld by the word of His power are merely forms of energy, some seemingly more solid than others. All this is nothing short of a miracle, so that all that exists is an outward expression of the miraculous power of the Word of G-d. This powerful force ceasing to create would revert all seperations of energy from matter into light ultimately into nothingness.

    Nothing of anything really exists on it's own right...and the notion of that Dominator model doesn't fit the comprehensive scheme knowing the whole universe is the outward expression of God's considerations.
    That's all good, except the languge that suggests "God created" as if "he" were seperate from his creation. I think it is more accurate to think of creation like leaves (us) emerging from a tree (God).

    The language of a "seperate God" is just a primitive way of thinking, like God as "king" who "rules over his creation." All those metaphors are seriously erroneous.

    Quote Originally Posted by Timmy View Post
    Should i go into the cultural family norms of let's say, the general rules of home life up until "The Enlightenment," such as Greek or Arabic or Indian culture?

    Here, it's thought that Bill Cosby has a clearer perspective on this than most. While relating his relationship to his father while growing up, when being confronted for somehow--is not exactly recalled--stepping over the line, his dad says,"SON! I brought you into this world. I'll take you out."

    It is not really like asking "Why would a Father owe anything at all to his child?"

    Here it is seen more of an obligation of man to function in the world according to rules of conduct for the best of all concerned, and far to many only look at the end-result immediate picture to the neglect of what let up to it. In all of human history, this seems to never have been the case...even under the most stringent conditions.
    Again, that is picturing God as a human. I think that leads to errors.

    If God were really like that, and he really did "write the Bible" then he could have done a much better job. That's why I just can't believe that he is anything like the confused image presented in the Bible. I say "confused" because we get a wide variety of "gods" presented as the One God in the Bible. He's mean, and petty and does really stupid things like impose a three year famine on Israel until David finally askes "What's up?" and god says "I'm still mad about Saul killing some Gibeonites" - and then we get the high and exalted view of Isaiah where God is "creator" and then we get the Garden story where God walks around asking "Yo, Adam? Where'd you go man?" etc., etc., etc. There's not even a coherent picture of a god in the Bible - what am I supposed to believe?

    Quote Originally Posted by Timmy View Post
    Anyone can babble on about logic and reason, but when the heart of the matter is left out of the picture, our ignorance to our true condition (no matter what happens to us or others by whomever's determination it occured, the problem still remains and we blindside ourselves negating the fact that there is far more to the human genome than rationality and morphic fields.
    (Susan Sontag's notion of creating a shadow world of meaning comes to mind.)
    Yes, there are many mysteries in the universe. But do those mysteries imply we should believe in ancient superstitions? I don't think so.

    I don't know anything about Susan Sontog's notion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Timmy View Post
    What do you think concerning Yeshua's words in Luke 13.1-9:
    "At that time, a some people came and reported to Him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices.

    And He [Yeshua] responded to them, 'Do you think that these Galileans were more sinful than all Galileans because they suffered these things? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all perish as well! Or those 18 that the tower in Siloam fell on and killed — do you think they were more sinful than all the people who live in Jerusalem? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all perish as well! '

    And He told this parable: 'A man had a fig tree that was planted in his vineyard. He came looking for fruit on it and found none. He told the vineyard worker, ‘Listen, for three years I have come looking for fruit on this fig tree and haven’t found any. Cut it down! Why should it even waste the soil? ’

    'But he replied to him, ‘Sir, leave it this year also, until I dig around it and fertilize it. Perhaps it will bear fruit next year, but if not, you can cut it down.’ '
    I don't know. Why do you ask?

    Quote Originally Posted by Timmy View Post
    Consider Noah Zark and 120 years of preaching and warning (about something that was unheard of--Rain? What's that?The earth flooded by water?) by Noah, Enoch and other family members prior the deluge...or do you consider Gilgamesh and other secular records more valid than the detailed accounts found in several Hebraic pieces of literature?
    (BTW, that video you posted is hilarious...and for the 9+ years of Timmy's incessant violin practice and orchestration, the Black Violins gotZ it going on.)
    Years ago I met a man named Noah with a dog named Zark. He was a nice guy.

    But do you really think there was a time when there was never any rain? The physics doesn't work. It's pure mythology.

    I don't think Gilgamesh is "more valid" but I do think it is the source of the Biblical myth.

    Which video was funny?
    Quote Originally Posted by Timmy View Post
    Isn't it more like G-d is saying, " I make the rules 'cause made all of this and you to function here. I know what's best for you--I made you and know your very frame, and even more, what you will do before you were ever born?"
    I can't imagine the true God talking like that, at least not in the context of assuming the Bible is "his word."

    Quote Originally Posted by Timmy View Post
    Please do not speculate about things where all the facts are not in. There is too much left unknown before just conclusions can be drawn concerning many things in the scriptures. (Remember, even with best guestimations, It's as if you are saying those people did not deserve to die, yet you just might not understand the reason why.
    Sure ... some alternate interpretation of the Bible could be true in every particular. No problem. But the traditional interpretation is not true.

    Quote Originally Posted by Timmy View Post
    Because i fear, trust, and love G-d, i do not doubt what is written of Him:
    -being a prejudiced heretical racist
    -loving only a chosen few
    -creating good
    -creating evil
    and so much more...
    What does it mean not to "doubt what is written of Him" if you don't know the proper interpretation?

    And why do you believe the Bible in the first place? How do you know which parts are "from God" (if any) and which are not?

    Quote Originally Posted by Timmy View Post
    If you will, it's asked that you look back to beginnings in Genesis and consider how God dealt with Adam after transgressing, and as well the account of Cain murdering Abel. Please look at what G-d did and ask yourself why. Could you be so loving and kind and then ask yourself what is the end result of anyone choosing to judge G-d?..but wait, there's more...

    What do you think God should do? Are you saying that because he does not meet our standards we can absolve our self from Him?

    Isn't it funny how rejecting whatever (is revealed to us) of God, we end up focusing in thought and deed on these very things?

    Isaiah 45.6-12:
    "...I am Yahweh, and there is no other.
    I form light and create darkness,
    I make success and create disaster;
    I, Yahweh, do all these things.
    Heavens, sprinkle from above,
    and let the skies shower righteousness.
    Let the earth open up
    so that salvation will sprout
    and righteousness will spring up with it.
    I, Yahweh, have created it.
    Woe to the one who argues with his Maker —
    one clay pot among many.
    Does clay say to the one forming it,
    ‘What are you making?’
    Or does your work say,
    ‘He has no hands’?
    How absurd is the one who says to his father,
    ‘What are you fathering?’
    or to his mother,
    ‘What are you giving birth to? ’
    This is what the LORD,
    the Holy One of Israel and its Maker, says:
    'Ask Me what is to happen to My sons,
    and instruct Me about the work of My hands.
    I made the earth,
    and created man on it.
    It was My hands that stretched out the heavens,
    and I commanded all their host.
    It is not "God" that I am judging. It is the words that men have written concerning God. Again, you must explain why anyone should believe the Bible. And when you read those words, you are compelled to "judge" because interpretation is an act of judgment.

    If the Bible speaks of a square circle you can claim to believe it but you really can't because the concept is logically incoherent.

    Well, I gotta go. That's one long post you wrote! I'll see if I can finish it up later.

    Great chatting!

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Not from this world...from the other side
    Posts
    3,236
    I don't understand that verse. It seems very strange in light of other verses, specifically:

    "For God so loved the world" + "If anyone loves the world, the love for the father is not in him" = direct contradiction.
    It is easy to understand these verses, there is no contradiction:

    If God loves us so much, would we do the same to Him? For God so loved the world that He gave His only son....do we on the other hand love God so much that we gave our only life to Him?.... The main reason why we do not give our only life for God is because we love this life on earth so much that we refuse to give up those pleasures when our final goal of living is towards eternal life in the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, anyone who loves the pleasures of life on earth does not have the love of God in his heart for what is in his heart is pleasure like in the parable of the rich fool. Which is better, a temporal life on earth or an eternal life in utopia? That is what it means, For God so loved the world that He gave His only son that whosoever believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life (in Utopia).

    The parable of the rich fool:

    Luke 12:16 And he told them this parable: 'The ground of a certain rich man yielded an abundant harvest. 17 He thought to himself, ‘What shall I do? I have no place to store my crops.’

    18 'Then he said, ‘This is what I’ll do. I will tear down my barns and build bigger ones, and there I will store my surplus grain. 19 And I’ll say to myself, 'You have plenty of grain laid up for many years. Take life easy; eat, drink and be merry.'’

    20 'But God said to him, ‘You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?’

    21 'This is how it will be with whoever stores up things for themselves but is not rich toward God.'


    May God forgives our souls.
    Last edited by CWH; 01-15-2012 at 08:31 PM.
    Ask and You shall receive,
    Seek and You shall find,
    Knock and the door will be open unto You.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •