bare
Maverick's Chew Toy
Posts: 47
|
Post by bare on Mar 29, 2006 7:55:03 GMT -5
theres an old saying that applies here
"dont believe anything you read and only half of what you see"
|
|
|
Post by guerrillasaint on Mar 30, 2006 11:46:37 GMT -5
How do you know what the truth is? How do you learn anything? So are you telling me the everything that your write down is a lie because if anyone one reads it they shouldn't believe it ? Are you saying that everything I have read on this website is a lie? If you really think about it that statement is stupid. I am not saying that everything you see or read is the truth. What I am saying is you need to have something that you can trust.
I trust God because he is the truth. He is the only thing that you can trust. I not only read it but I live it.
|
|
|
Post by vertigo on Mar 30, 2006 12:31:52 GMT -5
You can't trust God, he is a phantasm.
|
|
bare
Maverick's Chew Toy
Posts: 47
|
Post by bare on Mar 31, 2006 10:09:42 GMT -5
getting a little defensive there guerrilla.
the "saying" is not saying everything writen is a lie.....or the truth......just dont believe with blind faith.
and no it wasnt writen about the bible so dont get your panties in a wad
if you think about it the only ones who would think that statement is stupid is someone who is trying to live on blind faith, and doesnt want to deal with the complications of having to think for themselves.
that being said you ended your last post in an interesting way. you said you trust god, hes the only one you can trust. and that you read "IT"!!! this is in direct relation and reference to god by you you have quite a vested intrest in my "saying" being false
|
|
|
Post by guerrillasaint on Mar 31, 2006 17:02:17 GMT -5
What is your reasoning behind this? What is your proof that God is a phantasm? If I can trust him that means I have asked for something or have followed what he has commanded me. I not just talking about what he has had written in the Bible I am talking about what he as told me personally.
Actually it says "don't believe anything you read and only half of what you see" so it is saying that everything written is a lie. If you don't want me to take it out of context maybe you should have read what this form is about. Also you may have quoted what this statement apples to. Other wise you may get a reply that I gave you. If you wanted to express what you are saying now maybe you should have just said that you can't believe everything that you read.
I wasn't just committing about the Bible but other non-fiction works as well.
Faith in God isn't Blind. He will always give you conformation for his commandments. He doesn't want to leave his followers in the dark because he knows how we work. All he asks of us it that we trust him with all of our heart and follow his commandments.
I don't quite understand what you are say with this statement. If you are saying that I went to great lengths to disprove you I will have to say no I just thought about the "saying" and ask God to show me the truth. If that wasn't what you meant then sorry but I don't get it.
|
|
bare
Maverick's Chew Toy
Posts: 47
|
Post by bare on Apr 2, 2006 6:20:10 GMT -5
you have probably gone over this before but what sect of christianity are you?
|
|
|
Post by guerrillasaint on Apr 3, 2006 0:13:03 GMT -5
Baptist, but I am not hung up on different Christian sects. What matters is if you have a relationship with God, and if you are going in that relationship with him.
|
|
bare
Maverick's Chew Toy
Posts: 47
|
Post by bare on Apr 8, 2006 4:32:14 GMT -5
okay lets take the recent autobiography debacle, i forget the name of the book. but it was the one about drug addiction that got oprah involved. at first oprah stood up for the book when the authors credibility fell into question. it sounded truthful, it MOVED her, she wanted it to be true because it carried such a good message that you can overcome adversity, she believed it staunchly.
she would have been well advised to take this saying into account
now i agree with you on the changing anything to everything issue up to a point, and that is that in using everything it doesn't carry the weight that using anything does. which does lead to the odd point that you round aboutly brought up, that does that mean me on rereading my own post should not believe it? no not necessarily tho you/i may and should ask ourself weather we believe it or not, as with ALL you read, that is the only point of the saying. we can and continually are decieved, in what we read or see
case and point weapons of mass destruction possed by iraq as a reason to go to war (im not begining an pro/con iraq war debate here) just the fact that this was fed to the world as truth, and swallowed hook line and sinker
|
|
snafui
Seasoned Citizen
Posts: 169
|
Post by snafui on Jul 16, 2006 12:20:15 GMT -5
Well guys first some humor on the subject:
Three monks decided to practice meditation together. They sat by the side of a lake and closed their eyes in concentration. Then suddenly, the first one stood up and said, “I forgot my mat.†He steeped miraculously onto the water in front of him and walked across the lake to their hut on the other side. When he returned, the second monk stood up and said, “I forgot to put my other underwear to dry.†He too walked calmly across the water and returned the same way. The third monk watched the first two carefully in what he decided must be the test of his own abilities. “Is your learning so superior to mine? I too can match any feat you two can perform,†he declared loudly and rushed to the water’s edge to walk across it. He promptly fell into the deep water. Undeterred, the monk climbed out of the water and tried again, only to sink into the water. Yet again he climbed out and yet again he tried, each time sinking into the water. This went on for some time as the other two monks watched. After a while, the second monk turned to the first and said, “Do you think we should tell him where the stones are?†-- Magyarul --
Now to get to work:
The Pauline letters and the like were written from the 40s and on and Paul makes no mention of Jesus being a man on earth. There is a known mistranslation of Hebrews 8:4 that correctly states "if Jesus had been on earth...." It was not until the Gospels were written, from about 85 to 100, that Jesus as a man on earth came into literature. The mystery cults of that time period, about a dozen of them, all have half men half gods that came to the spiritual plane, between heaven and earth, to do deeds and miracles to save all of mankind and make a union possible between God and man. Jesus is a later addition to this tradition.
When you learn to defy the laws of physics feel free to share it with the rest of us. And walking on water as a miracle, or just as a trick, has been around for a very long, long time; look into Asian literature about various monks.
Now about original sin and Jesus' not having sinned:
2 Kings 14:6 (NIV) and 2 Chronicles 25:4 (NIV) Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sins.
Psalm 79:8 (NIV) Do not hold against us the sins of the fathers...
Ezekiel 18:20 (NIV) The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son.
The Catholic belief that an "Original Sin" was passed from generation to generation but skipped Mary so that Jesus would be born without sin is one of the most ludicrous doctrines I've ever heard. When I was a kid, somewhere around 3rd grade, and they told us this garbage, I asked, "if Mary was born without Original Sin so that Jesus would not be born with sin then why wasn't Mary's mother born without it, too?" I got in a lot of trouble!
The versus above defy the concept of Original Sin but many still buy into the notion. What kind of God would make you responsible for the acts of another, your father or not? And, yes, I know that part of the concept is that Original Sin is death passed on to subsequent generations, but it is more than just that concept because death was also taught as a punishment for Original Sin.
|
|
snafui
Seasoned Citizen
Posts: 169
|
Post by snafui on Jul 16, 2006 12:44:34 GMT -5
Opps, sorry for two posts I forgot about bare's comment: Not only did Saddam have them, he used them. I learned about this doing Intel collation and breifings in the Air Force. If Saddam wanted to avoid a war he should have not played with the UN inspectors and given them free access to search. Furthermore, as the inspectors were approaching trucks were at each site and left just before the inspectors arrived. The amount of weapons we are looking for would fit into an average two car garage (this is enough to kill billions btw) and would be easily missed. Winds of Death: Iraq's Use of Poison Gas Against its Kurdish Population, February 1989 ("Winds of Death") www.phrusa.org/research/iraq/winds.htmlA. Hay and G. Roberts, "The use of poison gas against the Iraqi Kurds: Analysis of bomb fragments, soil and wool samples," Journal of the American Medical Association, 1990;262:1065-1066 Link to this only does you any good if you subscribe to their site: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2299775&dopt=AbstractNerve Gas used in Northern Iraq on Kurds: Medical Group proves use of chemical weapons through forensic analysis www.phrusa.org/research/chemical_weapons/chemiraqgas2.htmlWolfe, "Chemical and Biological Warfare: Medical Effects and Consequences," 28 McGill L.J. 732 (1983). www.hrw.org/reports/1992/iraqkor/KOREME4.htmAnd... they did find some: U.S. must seek truth about WMD www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgazette/news/editorial/15051661.htmThis is way off topic but I thought you should know...
|
|