The Gospel of Jesus vs The Gospel of Paul

Originally posted by @fmf
You can just withdraw at a moment of your choosing.

Oh no, it's fine.

We have different value systems. I get it.

I just suggest you be very bold, honest, and what have you. Be courageous when you choose words.

Courage is the virtue that makes all other virtues possible, and it is the virtue by which we can liberate ourselves from our other shortcomings, so even if this isn't vital to your personal well being to use courageous, assertive words, you should still just do it.

Just a suggestion to put into your suggestion box.

Originally posted by @jacob-verville
Of course I understand your writing. It is a very simple and straightforward comment, and I must compliment your writing style. It is always very condensed and compact. This is very useful for comprehension but, in the long run, it seems to rob the audience of understanding your greater outlook as it always feels like you are playing your cards close ...[text shortened]... open your flower up to us more.

But, yes, I understand.

Just, let me water your flower.

I think spirituality seen as a function of the human spirit can act as a prism through which to look at the diverse outcomes of our embrace of that which is lacking material body, form, or substance - and, as varied and contrasting as those outcomes may be, they are all rooted in our common humanity.

Originally posted by @jacob-verville
I just suggest you be very bold, honest, and what have you. Be courageous when you choose words.

Well, I am taking some flak from you with what I feel is arguably a bold and honest ~ and non-religious ~ take on what "spirit" actually is and means and causes in humans. If you feel I am not being honourable or courageous, that's OK, but I don't see how it achieves anything much aside from dipping your disagreement with me in a tiny bit of haughty vitriol.

Originally posted by @jacob-verville
Courage is the virtue that makes all other virtues possible, and it is the virtue by which we can liberate ourselves from our other shortcomings, so even if this isn't vital to your personal well being to use courageous, assertive words, you should still just do it.

This riff about "courage" seems to me to be a bit of a red herring. Is there anything else about what I have posted aside from this stuff about "courage"?

Originally posted by @jacob-verville
This is very useful for comprehension but, in the long run, it seems to rob the audience of understanding your greater outlook as it always feels like you are playing your cards close to the chest.

I don't see how I am "playing [my] cards close to the chest". I have laid out what my take is on the thing that religionists mean by "soul" and "spirit". I am being very open about it and I fully realize that maybe upwards of 90% will not agree with it and some - like you - might even use to question my honesty etc. But it's OK. It's certainly a cards on the table moment and not a cards close to the chest moment.

Originally posted by @jacob-verville
Frankly, I think this is what the liberals and secular humanists in general struggle from:not much integrity or courage, not much inventiveness. Really willing to just be the small souled bugmen who recycle the easiest arguments and take the paths of least resistance.

Is this stuff about 'people really willing to just be the small souled bugmen with not much integrity or courage, not much inventiveness' aimed at me personally or aimed at other people?

Originally posted by @sonship
The new covenant prophesied to come by [b]Jeremiah consisted of four parts. One of those parts was that God would no longer remember their sins by any means. That is justification. That is redemption.

That that is not the ONLY section of the new covenant predicted by Jeremiah is evident. And no section should be neglected.

Here we see the four se ...[text shortened]... ant? Yes, often. Of course both Christ and His apostle Paul stressed the OTHER aspects as well.[/b]

Note that there is no mention of a "redemptive work on the cross for salvation", an "atoning sacrifice" or anything like it. If you understood the later OT prophets, you might understand the reason the people will be forgiven and their sins remembered no more. It isn't because of a "redemptive work on the cross for salvation", an "atoning sacrifice" or anything like it. If you understood the later OT prophets, you might also understand the gospel preached during His ministry.

You also don't understand what's being said in what you split up into 1, 2, 3. A large part of the reason that you don't understand it is likely because you DID split it up. You have a real habit of splitting up both scripture and what people write on this forum. In the process you lose sight of the bigger picture. This methodology begets a failure to understand the written word.

This is what you do jaywill, you come up with half-baked theories of what you think is being said in scripture, when the reality is that you don't understand what's actually being said. It's a real problem.

If you remain true to form, you won't understand what I've written here either.

Originally posted by @fmf
I think spirituality seen as a function of the human spirit can act as a prism through which to look at the diverse outcomes of our embrace of that which is lacking material body, form, or substance - and, as varied and contrasting as those outcomes may be, they are all rooted in our common humanity.

But why would there be anything lacking?

We have minds. We have psyches, and a psychology to understand that psyche.

Do you really think it's fine to just indulge in runaway fantasies about "spirits?" Isn't that actually just the cause of the Female Genital Mutilation and Violence that you condemn religionists for?

Why this wishy-washy middle-ground position that pretends the material and the scientific understanding isn't enough?

This comes off as so uncomfortable. It's dishonest to your opponents. You can't just straddle this middle ground when it becomes uncomfortable.

Why is material, and why is psychology, not good enough for everyone, and not the ultimate answer?

Originally posted by @fmf
Well, I am taking some flak from you with what I feel is arguably a bold and honest ~ and non-religious ~ take on what "spirit" actually is and means and causes in humans. If you feel I am not being honourable or courageous, that's OK, but I don't see how it achieves anything much aside from dipping your disagreement with me in a tiny bit of haughty vitriol.

How is this haughty?

I point out how your position is really not so straightforward. It's this massaged materialism that can't quite be fully honest. It couches reality in familiar terms.

Perhaps you have more theist inclinations than you'd like to admit. Does that sound like a plausible explanation?

Originally posted by @fmf
I don't see how I am "playing [my] cards close to the chest". I have laid out what my take is on the thing that religionists mean by "soul" and "spirit". I am being very open about it and I fully realize that maybe upwards of 90% will not agree with it and some - like you - might even use to question my honesty etc. But it's OK. It's certainly a cards on the table moment and not a cards close to the chest moment.

Yeah but like this is one thing.

Usually your only role here is to interrogate others on their beliefs.

Methinks you dislike the very idea of discussing y our own views because it really does take a bajillion times more effort.

Originally posted by @fmf
Is this stuff about 'people really willing to just be the small souled bugmen with not much integrity or courage, not much inventiveness' aimed at me personally or aimed at other people?

Oh no, not at all, I wouldn't dare think of violating the Forum rule #1 and make a personal attack.

But if you PM me, I'll tell you something more about it.

Originally posted by @jacob-verville
I point out how your position is really not so straightforward. It's this massaged materialism that can't quite be fully honest. It couches reality in familiar terms.

Questioning my honesty in the wake of what I have posted since page 18 is not going to have any effect on me.

Originally posted by @jacob-verville
I don't know anything about your personality. [...] I'd never try to insult your personality. [...]

How is this haughty?

If you are not talking about my character when you refer to things like my supposed lack of...

integrity, courage, honesty, boldness, honour, bravery, worth, inventiveness, creativity, smartness, praiseworthiness etc. [gosh, you mentioned a lot of character attributes in a small amount of text]

...then what are you referring to?

And what exactly are you referring to when you talk about "flawed characteristics" if not my personality/character?

Originally posted by @jacob-verville
Oh no, not at all, I wouldn't dare think of violating the Forum rule #1 and make a personal attack.

But if you PM me, I'll tell you something more about it.

Alex Jones talks about "small souled bugmen".

Originally posted by @fmf
And what about the substance of my post? It was a head-on reply to your question [b]"Have you personally met, spoken with and examined the heart of every Muslim on the planet?" You have sidestepped my answer.[/b]

I gave the answer previously and you apparently forgot it. Here it is again:

“You’re assuming that believers will openly attribute misfortune in their lives to God and share that opinion with you. On the occasions when I have felt I was being chastised by the Lord (or unfairly punished,) I was loathe to share that with anyone.
BTW, the Lord scourges every son he receives and tries our faith by means of adversity and affliction.“