Seasons
This is a forum or general chit-chat, small talk, a "hey, how ya doing?" and such. Or hell, get crazy deep on something. Whatever you like.
Posts 184 - 195 of 6,170
Posts 184 - 195 of 6,170
You have some good points Corwin; if I were a biologist I could probably discuss them in a coherent fashion.
But let's make something clear, shall we? God could send us all to Hell tomorrow, and perfect justice would be served. That is what we deserve for our sin. Now God is loving and didn't want to do this -- so He devised a plan by which sinners could be forgiven. Coming into this world as a man, He lived a perfect life and then died, taking upon Himself the penalty for our sin. It is because of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ that forgivness of sins is possible. Only through Him can anyone be saved. This is the clear teaching of the Bible. If you try to accept the "ideas of the Bible" without what it says, "word for word," how are you going to determine what those ideas are? If the Bible doesn't mean what it says, who is to say what it does mean?
But let's make something clear, shall we? God could send us all to Hell tomorrow, and perfect justice would be served. That is what we deserve for our sin. Now God is loving and didn't want to do this -- so He devised a plan by which sinners could be forgiven. Coming into this world as a man, He lived a perfect life and then died, taking upon Himself the penalty for our sin. It is because of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ that forgivness of sins is possible. Only through Him can anyone be saved. This is the clear teaching of the Bible. If you try to accept the "ideas of the Bible" without what it says, "word for word," how are you going to determine what those ideas are? If the Bible doesn't mean what it says, who is to say what it does mean?
I never said that we could not take the bible word for word. But no one speaks or really understand biblical hebrew and aramaic, and we do not completely understand the customs of the time it was written (yes we know some of them but not all) to be jumping to conclusions. For example when the bible say a eye for a eye does that mean we can met out our own judgement against others? No because it also say revenge is mine, says the Lord. All anybody can do is to take the bible as a whole and interpret it using the whole context that a verse is put in. Taking one little verse out of context is what causes disscention and errors in biblical truthes. That is the biggest problem about some so called christains, they find a verse and jump on it while overlooking the context it was in. The also argue about things that are not important for our or anyone elses salvation. All this bickering between christains causes people who might be interested to turn the other way. The real message is of Jesus God's only begotten son who died for our sins and rose again from the grave and acended into heaven. The whole Bible is about who God is, His relationship with us and how God loves us. As far as I am concerned this disscusion is not helping other people come to know the lord so I am ending my part in it.
While I agree that the Gospel is of primary importance, I do not agree that doctrines that are not essential to salvation are unimportant. While I often avoid discussing them with non-believers, I do not think it is always wrong to do so. The most ardent evangelists talks about other subjects sometimes -- and I find the discussion we've been having here a good deal more edifying than the one in Dogh'd's Cosmic Bar, for instance.
Mr Crab, imagine the beingness as streaming out into differentiated reality, with a return flow that forms standing waves at certain areas (like the waves coming inland from the sea, then flowing back out). These form domains of reality from those as far out and separate-feeling as we are now to those in which individuality barely exists, where thoughts flow freely from being to being.
As far as loneliness, would you feel more lonlely completely separated from all life, but surrounded by it? Or being completely joined with all life, but have nothing outside yourself? Perhaps both, and so we go back and forth between the different domains, in teh direction of whatever we seek at any given time.
Eugene- The beingness can be said to have always existed, but as it is the source of time, both past and future, the question doesnt quite apply. As to karma, If I were to hurt someone, at another level of reality, I am the person being hurt, and thus karma is instantly satisfied, but our own growth asks that we experience both sides of every interaction, which is true at a higher level closer to the undifferentiated beingness.
As far as loneliness, would you feel more lonlely completely separated from all life, but surrounded by it? Or being completely joined with all life, but have nothing outside yourself? Perhaps both, and so we go back and forth between the different domains, in teh direction of whatever we seek at any given time.
Eugene- The beingness can be said to have always existed, but as it is the source of time, both past and future, the question doesnt quite apply. As to karma, If I were to hurt someone, at another level of reality, I am the person being hurt, and thus karma is instantly satisfied, but our own growth asks that we experience both sides of every interaction, which is true at a higher level closer to the undifferentiated beingness.
Dogh'ds bar is for fun. This one is for disscusions. But seeing as how you won't let this paticular disscussion end it says in the Bible Romans 12:3-21 I say to every one of you: do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgement.." "....If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live in peace with everyone." It also says in romans 14:1-23 "Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgement on disputable matters. One mans faith allows him to eat everything but another man whose faith is weak eats only vegetables.." "Therefore let us stop passing judgement on one another. Instead make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brothers way." "therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. Do not destroy the work of the Lord for the sake of food" now what does this all mean? Is this paticular passage only for disputes over food? No it is a principle a example of what we should avoid ergo disputable things. to make my point futher In corinthians 1:10-13 "I appeal to you, brothers, in the name Of our Lord Jesus Christ that you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you might be perfectly united in mind and thought." So to end this letter yes it does matter when you argue about disputable things. I am guilty of doing that right here and now. But so that you might understand I am making this post.
Two points: First, how do you define "disputable"? If you mean anything that can be disputed, then we have to avoid every issue. Second, discussing something is different from arguing about it or condemning someone over it. How can we agree with one another if we don't know what the truth is? Yes it is wrong to make every doctrine essential to salvation, but it is equally wrong to ignore certain portions of Scripture because they are controversial. "All Scripture is inspired by God, and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." -- 2 Timothy 3:16-17
The point in context was that it was possible to get discount meat that had been sacrificed to idols. Some Christians who had recently converted out of pagan religions had a problem with this, while others realized that the idols were nothing.
As far as I know, my own religion has nothing to say about what kinds of conversations I have as long as I don't speak ill of others or invoke God mockingly. My personal preference (i.e. my own philosophy) is that talking about "disputed" things is not only fun but also instructive. But I should clarify that I don't think we've been having a conversation about whose religion is "right" or anything of the sort -- though there was some discussion I clearly can't enter since it premises certain things that only Christians believe... and I've certainly no wish to argue the definition of tenets of faith in a religion I don't share.
Been away for a few days, catching up:
Eugene wrote:
Your comment on being born Jewish is an interesting one. I assume you mean that you are Jewish by race -- but I would contend that it does not necessarily follow that you are Jewish by religion. Judaism accepts Gentile proselytes, who if I am not mistaken have basically the same religious standing as Jews by birth. I realise that the modern Jewish faith doesn't have a definite system of doctrine. But I thought the one unifying creed was, "Shema Yisrael! Adonai Elohenu, Adonai Echad!" It would seem that one could not hold to this while denying all belief in the supernatural. Am I wrong?
Well, as to your first point, I could reject the Jewish religion or determine to fail to observe every commandment, but by virtue of being born Jewish I am necessarily bound by these commandments nonetheless and will be till I die, whatever else I may believe. It was in that sense that I meant I would always be a Jew, not race only. I think my point was that religion does not compete in a free market of ideas. If it did, we should all be born religion-less and free to choose or not as we mature and at any time.
As for your second point, Judaism may well accept converts (my own mother is one, in fact), albeit rarely, but the fact that one can enter something one wasn't born into does not also mean that one can leave it!
I was surprised and confused to hear you say modern Judaism doesn't have a system of doctrine. Maybe I'm confused about what you mean by doctrine.
As to your last point, the Sh'ma is, I think, a good rallying call, but failure to say it or agree on what it means does not have the power to render one Jewish or not. More to your point (and to Pi's in a moment), why should God, whether One, whether that of Israel, or otherwise, be necessarily supernatural?
To be continued...
Been away for a few days, catching up:
Eugene wrote:
Your comment on being born Jewish is an interesting one. I assume you mean that you are Jewish by race -- but I would contend that it does not necessarily follow that you are Jewish by religion. Judaism accepts Gentile proselytes, who if I am not mistaken have basically the same religious standing as Jews by birth. I realise that the modern Jewish faith doesn't have a definite system of doctrine. But I thought the one unifying creed was, "Shema Yisrael! Adonai Elohenu, Adonai Echad!" It would seem that one could not hold to this while denying all belief in the supernatural. Am I wrong?
Well, as to your first point, I could reject the Jewish religion or determine to fail to observe every commandment, but by virtue of being born Jewish I am necessarily bound by these commandments nonetheless and will be till I die, whatever else I may believe. It was in that sense that I meant I would always be a Jew, not race only. I think my point was that religion does not compete in a free market of ideas. If it did, we should all be born religion-less and free to choose or not as we mature and at any time.
As for your second point, Judaism may well accept converts (my own mother is one, in fact), albeit rarely, but the fact that one can enter something one wasn't born into does not also mean that one can leave it!
I was surprised and confused to hear you say modern Judaism doesn't have a system of doctrine. Maybe I'm confused about what you mean by doctrine.
As to your last point, the Sh'ma is, I think, a good rallying call, but failure to say it or agree on what it means does not have the power to render one Jewish or not. More to your point (and to Pi's in a moment), why should God, whether One, whether that of Israel, or otherwise, be necessarily supernatural?
To be continued...
» More new posts: Doghead's Cosmic Bar