05 Feb 11
5 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe aim behind this scripture fest
so you cannot, hardly surprising is it,
Codex Sinaiticus, Gr., fourth cent. C.E., British Museum, H.S., G.S.
Codex Alexandrinus, Gr., fifth cent. C.E., British Museum, H.S., G.S.
Aleppo Codex, Heb., c. 930 C.E., Israel, H.S.
Aquila’s Gr. translation of H.S., second cent. C.E., Cambridge, England.
Armenian Version, fourth to thirteenth cent. C ...[text shortened]... es so as to have their names printed in the word of God, so why dont you just get over the fact.
Is one shows the other, *their* God's best! 😏
Clattering shelves and scattering papers
A fruitless war that never tapers 🙄
Should one tell the other "my God's the winner!!!"
The other returns: "you truculent sinner!" 😠
The battle heats up, the attacks hitting faster
Who will now triumph? who will be master? 😕
Neither can see their *ideas* of some "God"
Are just two little peas in an infinite pod 😲
If some god exists, we can all rest assured
It is not upon humans that it's traits will be moored 😛
05 Feb 11
3 edits
Originally posted by AgergIt was going ok, until Jaywill started to get wide and attacked our superlative translation, our organisation and our work. I dunno, you cut some people some slack and they just run a mile with it. Now its all pear shaped, with materialists and beat poets every other kind of undesirable messing around, all its needs is Zapansy to show up and call me a moron and Noobster to tell me how annoying I am and that should just about finish it and me off i think.
The aim behind this scripture fest
Is one shows the other, [b]*their* God's best! 😏
Clattering shelves and scattering papers
A fruitless war that never tapers 😕
Neither can see their idea of "God"
Are two little peas in an infinite pod 😲
If some god exists, we can all rest assured
It is not within humans that its traits are moored 😛[/b]
05 Feb 11
2 edits
Any way, 1 Corinthians 2:14
we translate as the Physical man, and with sound basis,
Physical man, Greek, Psuchikos
1. of or belonging to breath
2. having the nature and characteristics of the breath
3. the principal of animal life, which men have in common with the brutes
4. governed by breath
5. the sensuous nature with its subjection to appetite and passion
Translated Words
KJV (6) - natural, 4; sensual, 2;
NAS (6) - natural, 5; worldly-minded, 1
http://www.studylight.org/isb/bible.cgi?query=1+corinthians+2%3A14§ion=0&it=kjv&ot=bhs&nt=na&Enter=Perform+Search
05 Feb 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou don't discuss, you throw verses on eachother.
Actually Jaywill and i were having a rather civil and insightful discussion, not marred by the usual base materialism and watering down of the word of God. I have gained an insight into his thinking, hopefully he has a better understanding of my perspective also. I would like to keep it both civil and fruitful if you dont mind.
The bible is so hard to interprete, therefore so badly written, so even christians themselves cannot agree to the proper meaning of the good book. Or rather, not so good book. Quite lousy book, in fact.
One of you twoo cannot be a real christian if you are not agreeing of the meaning of the verses you throw on eachother. Only real christians agree to the interpretation, as it was meant to be read. He, who doesn't not agree, cannot be a real christian from the other point of view. But who of you two, I wonder, is not a real christian according tot the other?
05 Feb 11
Originally posted by FabianFnasdo you have anything to say with regard to the quoted text themselves Fabian or must you simply make personal attacks on the people who posted them. The Bible is hard to interpret for some because as the scripture states, it is examined, spiritually, indeed, it would seem evident that the non-spiritual or Physical man cannot hope to grasp these things for that very reason.
You don't discuss, you throw verses on eachother.
The bible is so hard to interprete, therefore so badly written, so even christians themselves cannot agree to the proper meaning of the good book. Or rather, not so good book. Quite lousy book, in fact.
One of you twoo cannot be a real christian if you are not agreeing of the meaning of the verses yo ...[text shortened]... point of view. But who of you two, I wonder, is not a real christian according tot the other?
(1 Corinthians 2:14) But a physical man does not receive the things of the spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot get to know them, because they are examined spiritually. . .
Indeed it would seem that you are a case in point.
05 Feb 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou would like me to play the game by your rules, and you get frustrated when I don't.
do you have anything to say with regard to the quoted text themselves Fabian or must you simply make personal attacks on the people who posted them. The Bible is hard to interpret for some because as the scripture states, it is examined, spiritually, indeed, it would seem evident that the non-spiritual or Physical man cannot hope to grasp these thin ...[text shortened]... use they are examined spiritually. . .
Indeed it would seem that you are a case in point.[/b]
I comment your retorics. They are very transparant, you know.
I comment of your habit to trow verses against eachother,as proofs that you are right and the other is not. He, in turn do the same thing, use the same weaponry to show he is right and you are not. You both use verses instead of giving good arguments of your standpoints. You twrow verses.
That is what I comment. It is within the scope of this thread, becuase you are both doing it in this very thread. I am on-topic.
05 Feb 11
Originally posted by FabianFnasDo you have any comment on the verses themselves? No, then what is there to discuss?
You would like me to play the game by your rules, and you get frustrated when I don't.
I comment your retorics. They are very transparant, you know.
I comment of your habit to trow verses against eachother,as proofs that you are right and the other is not. He, in turn do the same thing, use the same weaponry to show he is right and you are not. You bo ...[text shortened]... hin the scope of this thread, becuase you are both doing it in this very thread. I am on-topic.
05 Feb 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe verses I'm not really interested in. The way you use the verses, as weapons, an alternative to real arguments, I'm interested in.
Do you have any comment on the verses themselves? No, then what is there to discuss?
Vishna uses verses from his scriptures in the same way. But as noone has his scriptures present, that doesn't work for him.
Do you really like to be thrown quotes from evolutionary books at you? No?
05 Feb 11
2 edits
Originally posted by FabianFnasNo Visnu does not use scripture in the same way, for i am prepared to discuss the verses that i use, pick any one, we can discuss it at length.
The verses I'm not really interested in. The way you use the verses, as weapons, an alternative to real arguments, I'm interested in.
Vishna uses verses from his scriptures in the same way. But as noone has his scriptures present, that doesn't work for him.
Do you really like to be thrown quotes from evolutionary books at you? No?
What is more, he cannot substantiate any of his claims.
It is important for you to understand that what we are doing is advocating scripture as a basis for reason, not stating things that are a product of our own originality or hearsay. That is why we look at the word in the original languages, look at the connotations of the word, look at it in its historical context as well as its scriptural context both immediate and in the Bible as a whole. This is something quite different from stating, you are a meat eater, there is no point on going on, blah de blah!
I have used quotations from Darwins own book myself on not a few occasions, its no big deal, but this is the spirituality forum, base materialism has no place here other than stating that its a religious belief. Which it is.
Also i will continue to use scriptural verse for i am advocating not my own thoughts, but the teachings of Christ and the Word of Inspiration, the Holy Bible.
05 Feb 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI see the similarities in retorics between you and Vishva. You don't because you find it embarassing. Fundamentalists of all kinds tend to discuss very alike eachother.
No Visnu does not use scripture in the same way, for i am prepared to discuss the verses that i use, pick any one, we can discuss it at length.
What is more, he cannot substantiate any of his claims.
It is important for you to understand that what we are doing is advocating scripture as a basis for reason, not stating things that are a prod ...[text shortened]... ng not my own thoughts, but the teachings of Christ and the Word of Inspiration, the Holy Bible.
Discussing details in the bible is like discussing details of the ring-trilogy. Both are books written by men of a certain purpose. None of the is holy and devine. When I take up details of the bible, it is because I want to know how you can resolve the paradox, nothing more. Because all religious parts of the bible is strongly connected to the issue of the existence of god. If god doesn't exist, then the bible reduces to not more than myths and fairytales. So the religious parts bible is only interesting when existence is proven. It cannot be proven.
Yes, you go on throwing verses in the eyes of people. I go on study your retorics. You're happy, and I'm happy.
05 Feb 11
2 edits
Originally posted by FabianFnasyes we can find many excuses not to discuss the text under question, none of which of course negates the fact that the text exists regardless, nor are they particularly original. I will continue to use Biblical text to present my arguments.
I see the similarities in retorics between you and Vishva. You don't because you find it embarassing. Fundamentalists of all kinds tend to discuss very alike eachother.
Discussing details in the bible is like discussing details of the ring-trilogy. Both are books written by men of a certain purpose. None of the is holy and devine. When I take up detai wing verses in the eyes of people. I go on study your retorics. You're happy, and I'm happy.
(John 7:16-18) . . .What I teach is not mine, but belongs to him that sent me. If anyone desires to do His will, he will know concerning the teaching whether it is from God or I speak of my own originality. He that speaks of his own originality is seeking his own glory; but he that seeks the glory of him that sent him, this one is true, and there is no unrighteousness in him.
05 Feb 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobiePlease continue with you retorics, like verse droppings. By all means, don't stop. I learn a lot of the methods of argumentation when I read postings from members of marginal groups.
yes we can find many excuses not to discuss the text under question, none of which of course negates the fact that the text exists regardless, nor are they particularly original. I will continue to use Biblical text to present my arguments.
(John 7:16-18) . . .[b]What I teach is not mine, but belongs to him that sent me. If anyone desires to ...[text shortened]... seeks the glory of him that sent him, this one is true, and there is no unrighteousness in him.[/b]
We can find the correct verses from the bible to support slave trading. We can also find the correct verses that it is wrong. And this is the very essence of the bible. There are so many verses, written by so many people, ove so long time span (but none of them are modern of course) that you can find support to more or less anything. From suicide bombings to veganism.
It's your religion. I'm happy it is not mine.
05 Feb 11
Originally posted by AgergThe Christian notion “Kingdom of God/ Heaven” has many aspects. It could be the “born again” experience, it could be a process based on faith, it could even be a future event that is expected to happen after Jesus returns, it could be the literal entrance into New Jerusalem, it could also be an event that takes place in the heart of the believer who already -thanks to her/ his transformation- s/he is already (saved) in the kingdom of God. It is said that, whoever managed to elevate out of the darkness into the realm of the true (according to the Christian doctrine, that is) faith, then this person has already enter the Kingdom. Methinks all the Christians, regardless of their denomination, they grasp the above mentioned meanings although they lack of a consensus; whoever misunderstands or ignores the above, no matter if s/he is theist or atheist or agnostic, in my opinion s/he lacks of basic knowledge of the Christian doctrine.
The aim behind this scripture fest
Is one shows the other, [b]*their* God's best! 😏
Clattering shelves and scattering papers
A fruitless war that never tapers 🙄
Should one tell the other "my God's the winner!!!"
The other returns: "you truculent sinner!" 😠
The battle heats up, the attacks hitting faster
Who will now triumph? who will be maste ...[text shortened]... sts, we can all rest assured
It is not upon humans that it's traits will be moored 😛[/b]
So methinks our robbie, aware of this consensus and sure enough that these interpretations are well known to almost every participant of this forum, he is eager to start a conversation about whether or not the "entrance" in the "Kingdom of God" is related to one’s works or not. He would probably love to start a debate about what exactly the believer has to get ready in order to proceed towards the Kingdom of God, or maybe he wants to discuss about the necessity or not of the establishment and of the practice of Love by the believer. He probably wants even to ask this simple question: a believer, who always performs good works but does not love heartily Jesus, can s/he expect that s/he will enter the Kingdom of God?
But the conversation doesn’t start although our jaywill tried (seemingly) his best -or I fully misunderstand robbie’s point too oh the horror!
Anyway, this rant of this Formidable Greek Jock is empty
😵
06 Feb 11
2 edits
Originally posted by black beetleGreat and illustrious beetle, greetings from our little scraggy island, how happy i am to make my defence before you, a man well versed in the controversies of the Christians.
The Christian notion “Kingdom of God/ Heaven” has many aspects. It could be the “born again” experience, it could be a process based on faith, it could even be a future event that is expected to happen after Jesus returns, it could be the literal entrance into New Jerusalem, it could also be an event that takes place in the heart of the believer who alr e’s point too oh the horror!
Anyway, this rant of this Formidable Greek Jock is empty
😵
Firstly it became apparent that if there is a consistent theme running though the teachings of Christianity, it was this one under question, the Kingdom of God. As far as i can tell the concept is found nowhere except within the framework of Christianity and is exclusive to it. That being the case i sought to examine what Christian concepts of this were, and seeing that it was to be found, exclusively in scripture and nowhere else, to determine if these ideas were consistent by subjecting them to scripture.
I was not really interested in how one got into the Kingdom of God, but to establish its very nature, to define what it was, for as you are aware, there are many different concepts and opinions as to its nature.
During the episode it became apparent that Jaywill had begun his discourse with a preconception, that the Kingdom of God was a condition of heart, a place where Christ mysteriously and literally dwelt, whose spirit somehow managed to mingle with the person transforming the adherent into a believer. This appeared to me to rest on certain interpretations , especially of the term 'spirit', which Jaywill had imposed his exegesis upon. When he was presented with certain other scriptural elements , he was forced to conclude that it was, at the same time, an external entity the nature of which was to establish Gods sovereignty above other sovereign states. How he reconciled these two ideas I am not really certain.
Fabian for his part was merely content to derail the process with references to truth and calling into question the integrity of the scriptural text, but as was pointed out, this was practically irrelevant, for the teaching exists irrespective of whether it is true or not.
Karoly Poly makes an assertion which i think is a common misconception and indeed, if it were examined under scriptural light, i dont think that it would stand, but if we simply drive out the mine shaft the earth shall fall upon our heads, they need to be carefully replaced, one at a time.
I myself was really kind of disappointed, for there are literally scores of verses intimating what the Kingdom of God might be, indeed, Christ himself, as was his manner, uses all kinds of deep and thought provoking illustrations to try to get the idea across to his immediate disciples, its like a pearl which a man finds, or its like a man which travels to a distant land etc etc.
If we could have at very least discussed some of these before the cannons were loaded, it would have been fine, but alas it was not to be.