|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is God Self-Evident | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Bailey Member (Idle past 4401 days) Posts: 574 From: Earth Joined: |
Thanks for the exchange.
Hope things are well ... This is not to imply that I agree with either one of you in this specific instance, but rather the exact opposite.
brutha hyro writes: brutha iano writes:
It's not that long of a psalm, plus I already posted it and am feeling too tired and lazy to go get the exact verbiage. brutha hyro writes:
Could you elaborate - regarding the bit about God's declaring of his rejoicing in the manner you suggested. brutha iano writes:
Psalm 137 brutha hyro writes:
Where does this occur? brutha iano writes:
So it is God's righteousness to not only smash little babies on rocks, but to "delight" in the savage act as well? What ungodly affront is God "repaying" them for? I see no reason to skip over the righteousness of Gods actions. To repeat: God killing isn't murder (murder being defined as 'unrighteous taking of life') because the life belongs to him. Us killing without Gods say so is murder - the life isn't ours to take. To put things in context ...
quote: In the end, the text does not infer any god as the baby smasher, the speaker of the narrative/poem or even that one may have condoned such nonsense. The baby smashin' refers to Edomite babies and it's being spoken by a pissed off jewish author, bent outta shape because the Edomites were talkin' shit. Apparently, not only were the Edomites not on the side of the captives, they were allegedly rooting for the destruction of Zion. So then, the psalmist is dramatically anticipating and establishing a certain blessing for whoever may carry out the revenge. It seems as though somebody overlooked the power of forgiveness ... In the name of brother Joshua the Anointed One, peace be with you. One Love Edited by Bailey, : title Edited by Bailey, : sp. I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker. If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice' They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself? Think for yourself. Mercy Trumps Judgement,Love Weary
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Bailey Member (Idle past 4401 days) Posts: 574 From: Earth Joined: |
Thanks for the exchange brutha hyro ...
Hope things are well with you & yours. brutha hyro writes: weary writes:
So what???!!! brutha hyro writes:
In the end, the text does not infer any god as the baby smasher, the speaker of the narrative/poem or even that one may have condoned such nonsense. brutha iano writes:
It's not that long of a psalm, plus I already posted it and am feeling too tired and lazy to go get the exact verbiage. brutha hyro writes:
Could you elaborate - regarding the bit about God's declaring of his rejoicing in the manner you suggested. brutha iano writes:
Psalm 137 brutha hyro writes:
Where does this occur? brutha iano writes:
So it is God's righteousness to not only smash little babies on rocks, but to "delight" in the savage act as well? What ungodly affront is God "repaying" them for? I see no reason to skip over the righteousness of Gods actions. To repeat: God killing isn't murder (murder being defined as 'unrighteous taking of life') because the life belongs to him. Us killing without Gods say so is murder - the life isn't ours to take. The baby smashin' refers to Edomite babies and it's being spoken by a pissed off jewish author, bent outta shape because the Edomites were talkin' shit. Ermm - soooo, you have been attempting to convince everyone that 'god' was advocating and encouraging baby smashin' somewhere within Psalms 137. I just thought it good to point out that the text doesn't seem to support your contention, that is, unless you worship bitter Yisraeli nationalist authors.
I'm pretty pissed at the Taliban, but that doesn't mean that I would delight in taking their precious and innocent infants and smashing them on the rock. And for that, I applaud you. Now, would you ever, perhaps, condone laying waste to entire Aphgan, Taliban or Iraqi villages with their correlating infants snuggled into the population? Wait, let me guess - that's different.
brutha hyro writes: weary writes:
Infants don't root for the destruction of Zion, Bailey. Apparently, not only were the Edomites not on the side of the captives, they were allegedly rooting for the destruction of Zion. Afaik, I never asserted that any infants were ever rooting 'for the destruction of Zion' and, moreover, you seem to have gotten that one right this time. However, it appears to me that it's the parents of the Edomite infants who are are charged with a recklessness of sorts in the preceding verse ...
quote: And so, it seems the dangerously overwhelming bitterness and resentment displayed by the author of this specific Psalm ...
quote: ... is the motivating impulse within the last stance of this sick ass poem, and so, not really 'god' at all - as you would have us think. It is rather, the Edomites who assisted in facilitating this ancient 9-11 of sorts within Yerusalem, being charged by an angry nationalist. Perhaps the author felt that no more Edomite babies somehow equivocates to no more 9-11's in Zion. I'd reckon that's some faulty reasoning at its best. Again, my conscience does not provide for me to agree with you or them (or brutha iano, for that matter).
brutha hyro writes: weary writes:
"Vengence is mine, saith the Lord, I will repay." So then, the psalmist is dramatically anticipating and establishing a certain blessing for whoever may carry out the revenge. If only the author of the Psalm believed that, maybe they wouldn't have written such drivel. Perhaps they too had a difficult time interpreting scripture ...
Great, except this is more like a mafia hit than a righteous killing. I would quicker agree that it is a sad display of a very poor mentality captured within this author's writing. This sort of thing is common for a nationalist.
The description is of genocide, attempting to wipe out an entire people's regardless of whether or not they were directly involved or incidentally happened to be there. There is the sense that you have not allowed yourself to perceive the full context of the injustice involved. I had the opportunity to write a lengthy paper on genocide not too long ago and while I find it quite easy to agree with the shortened definition you have provided, to a certain extent, I'd quicker say ... This description is of a bitter nationalist who has been placed into slavery after having his homeland eradicated. He is, at this point, seeking revenge. Sometimes people who are consumed with fury do and say things they, otherwise, would not have said and done. Please refer back to the top of the page where I inquire ... 'Would you condone laying waste to entire Aphgan, Taliban or Iraqi villages with their correlating infants snuggled into the population?'. Simple question, right?
brutha hyro writes: weary writes:
Yeah... God. It seems as though somebody overlooked the power of forgiveness ... I was thinking the bitter Yiraeli that penned the Psalm, but I suppose for one who worships such characters, your response is indeed justified. One Love Edited by Bailey, : sp. Edited by Bailey, : grammar Edited by Bailey, : grammar I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker. If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice' They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself? Think for yourself. Mercy Trumps Judgement,Love Weary
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Bailey Member (Idle past 4401 days) Posts: 574 From: Earth Joined: |
Thanks for the exchange hyro.
Hope things are well with you. hyro writes: weary writes:
Regardless of whom the human author is, the text clearly states that God commanded genocide. I just thought it good to point out that the text doesn't seem to support your contention, that is, unless you worship bitter Yisraeli nationalist authors. lol - no it doesn't. I'll wind up saying this redundantly I guess - the Psalms are songs, not commandments. They are sung to God, but not by God. Also, the text never mentions God speaking to the author or as the author, and more over, the author is singing to their God. It's a song hyro.
[some emphasis mine] Please stop regurgitating poisonous nationalist ideologies, it's bad for your health - lol
You therefore can't minimize it by saying that the author was an upset Israelite. Obviously, anyone who doesn't worship angry Yisraeli's or poems as a 'god' can do that. Your argument seems to be failing this time around ol' boy.
You don't get to cherry pick back and forth between infallible Word of God to pissed off author to suit a personal agenda. There is no need to cherry pick anything in this instance. The idea that you present - that Psalms are commandments from 'god', is your unique idea. Even if I wanted to cherry pick 'em, which isn't the case here, there's no need in this instance. Again, it's a religious chant to the author's god. Btw, I'm not a proponent of the christian/catholic sola scriptura, otherwise known as the doctrine of the 'infallible Word of God'. Again, I feel this can't be stressed enough - they are poems hyro, not commandments.
hyro writes: weary writes:
No I wouldn't, not that it matters. Now, would you ever, perhaps, condone laying waste to entire Aphgan, Taliban or Iraqi villages with their correlating infants snuggled into the population? Good deal. I'm really glad to hear that.
We're not talking about hypothetical situations, we're talking about GOD and what HE did supposedly in actuality. No. Were trying to get you to realize that a Psalm is not a commandment and that 'god' didn't author them. They are sung to God, not by God.
Talking about me or an angry author is just distraction taking away from God's role in it. God's role in the Tehillim is as a listener. Again, they are an offering to God, not from God. Are you unable or unwilling to concede to that notion? If so that's fine, I guess, as there are always going to be people who disagree with you regardless of your personal stance regarding scripture. Some may even try to kill you over it, but others will likely take solace in your shadow.
hyro writes: weary writes:
Immaterial to the point at hand, which is the slaughtering of infants, elderly, women, and in general, non-combatants. However, it appears to me that it's the parents of the Edomite infants who are are charged with a recklessness of sorts in the preceding verse ... It is as relevant as it may possibly get if someone is contending the song's were written to God, by God. That contention has very little support.
hyro writes: weary writes:
Which is irrelevant to the point that God commanded it and delighted in the massacre. And so, it seems the dangerously overwhelming bitterness and resentment displayed by the author of this specific Psalm ... No offense meant to you or Peg in this instance, as I'm about as bright as a stump, with only the faith of a mustard seed - yet, nonetheless ... While I would guess that Peg has more faith than you, I would have wagered you as the brighter one. Perhaps I wasn't spot on with that assessment. Please show me - specifically, where God commanded and delighted in this so called massacre. All I see is a threat of sorts on behalf of a harp player.
hyro writes: weary writes:
It is God, Bailey! Read it again. ... is the motivating impulse within the last stance of this sick ass poem, and so, not really 'god' at all - as you would have us think. You read it again bud - I've been reading the Tehillim for 17 yrs. It is not 'god' speaking, but rather 'god' being chanted or sung to. If you'd rather live in your fantasy world, that's fine too. Every one is entitled, agnostics, atheists, deists and theists alike.
He said how happy they [Israelites] would be if they smashed their enemies infants on the rocks. I doubt that by you continuing to repeat yourself with that allegation, that it's, somehow, going to make it any more true. Again, the one singin' the song to God is dreamin' of baby smashin' and as far as I can reason, God tuned 'em as soon as they started bein' a jackass. Consider, in context, God is the one who allegedly facilitated the Yisraeli captivity, as well as, the destruction of Zion - due to idolatrous behavior. The author of the poem is then, basically, putting out a hit of sorts, as you reasoned before. They are fuckin' pissed bro. Apparently this specific author learned nothing by captivity and defeat, except how to be more idolatrous and miserable. Perhaps this crew was unwilling to catch on to reality ... A bitter heart only returns bitterness.
That is not the only instance I have of God commanding genocide, God commanding rape, and God commanding some of the most heinous things imaginable. This is really the tip of the iceberg. Again ... If you worship bitter nationalists, then, perhaps, I can understand your perspective. However, I do not worship bitter nationalists. After reading the bible a few times, as far as I can tell, God wrote on a couple of tablets which he gave to Moses, the Prophets spoke out on God's behalf regarding social injustice and then Joshua the Anointed One spoke on the Father's behalf. So then, bitter priests just made attempts to stuff the rest of this shit in God's mouth. If you want to convince me, show me where a Prophet condoned these behaviors. Otherwise save your energies for someone more worthy.
hyro writes: weary writes:
I already know what the author thought. Perhaps the author felt that no more Edomite babies somehow equivocates to no more 9-11's in Zion. I'd reckon that's some faulty reasoning at its best. Sure doesn't seem that way. From where I stand, it seems like ... * you've been persuaded to worship bitter nationalists and wicked priests as some sort of 'god' * you've been persuaded to worship wicked priests and bitter nationalists as some sort of 'god' or * you've been persuaded to worship bitter nationalists and wicked priests as some sort of 'god' If you are trying to persuade me to worship that 'god', again, I'd suggest you save your energy - lol The traditions of the Nevi'im became locked within my heart and mind awhile ago.
The issue is whether or not this actually came from God. That's not an issue for most of the people I know who pass the time with Psalms. It is well known that they are a form of song, designed as an offering of sorts to God. They are not a form of song, designed by God to mankind.
According to the story, it did.... directly... That's sounds like your story. I'm interested to hear who agrees. I'd be surprised if even the proponent's of sola scriptura at EvC - or elsewhere, would concede to that though. Again, there's no actual commandment's found in the Tehillim. They're employed, more simply, throughout the traditional facets of Jewish worship such as funerals or morning services, and such. According to the Talmud, they were originally recited by the Levites within the confines of the Yerusalem Temple. Their reading is viewed as a vehicle of sorts for gaining God's favor, and so, it wouldn't be uncommon to hear their recitation, in part or in whole, during times of trouble, such as disease, famine or at a time of imminent danger, perhaps, to promote an added security of sorts towards modern Yisrael. I'm not sure how interested you are with the subject of Yisraeli tradition on the whole, but this is a pretty good read entitled 'Israel: the sword and the harp: the mystique of violence and the mystique of redemption'. I recommend chapter 8, 'Religionality' - the Nationalization of Religious Culture, even if you only browse.
That in turn brings us to he deeper issue which is whether or not the bible is actually the infallible Word of God. Ah, different question altogether. Everyone has their own view, but I'd quicker agree that the roman bible provides an infallible Witness of God. Perhaps two separate testimonies, as in a plaintiff and a defendant.
If it is, then God certainly called for genocide. Well, since my conscience does not provide for that option, I'll maintain a certain consistency in my veiw that sola scriptura is a priestly scam of sorts. At least, according to the criteria that you've provided.
If it isn't infallible, then the scriptures have no power or authority ... Perhaps that's only if you can be convinced that the prophet's were friendly with the priestly traditions. Judging by their condemnation, I'd say they weren't. So then, you may have a few choices, as far as I can reason ... * priests and prophets are in accord with one another and the scriptures are a sham. * priests and prophets are in accord with one another and the scriptures are are authoritative. * priests and prophets are not in accord with one another and the priestly writings are authoritative. * priests and prophets are not in accord with one another and the prophetic writings are authoritative. Since, after many hours of study, the priests and prophets do not seem to align well within my conscience, I must ultimately adhere to the last option.
as how would we be able to tell what comes from God and what comes from man's own thoughts. Consider - what do the priests speak about; what do the Prophet's speak about? Ask yourself, do they align with one another honestly? If it is true, as is written, that a double minded man is unstable in all his ways, reasonably the same must hold true to God who is above our ways. Perhaps one may need to take a definitive stance regarding how they feel the heart of God can be defined and what they feel characterizes the heart of mankind. At that point, as one becomes better able to distinguish the two, then perhaps one is in a better position to begin making informed decisions. It will, no doubt, be challenging to not get caught up in the distractions of others.
See the dilemma? Actually, yea - I suppose I can perceive how that may become a dilemma for someone. It's been quite a long time since I considered that dynamic. As far as the Psalms go though, there's not likely to be a dilemma for the one who understands they're just simple songs to God, albeit poorly written at times.
No matter which you choose you have to concede at least one of them is true. I agree. I just can't agree with someone who present's a false dichotomy of sorts or doctrine, as is often done. Once I submitted my conscience and intellect to God, it took a certain precedence over the word of ambiguity. Peace to you bud. One Love I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker. If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice' They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself? Think for yourself. Mercy Trumps Judgement,Love Weary
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Bailey Member (Idle past 4401 days) Posts: 574 From: Earth Joined: |
Thank you for the exchange hyro.
I hope things are good wiith ya. hyro writes: weary writes:
So therefore the author is speaking as if God is ordering a command to slaughter children, but God wouldn't actually do that? I'll wind up saying this redundantly I guess - the Psalms are songs, not commandments. They are sung to God, but not by God. The author of the verse in question never commands anything. Please, demonstrate otherwise.
Not only is that not true ... Perhaps you know that God would condone baby smashin'. I have yet to reach that conclusion. What I will consider is that God will allow one to succumb to their own aggression.
... but it brings the whole infallibility question in to disrepute. Again, whether or not sola scriptura, as defined by those within levtical christians and catholic traditions, has a valid basis in reality is a separate topic.
What I gather is that you don't believe that God would ever actually condone such behavior because it's just a song. No need to put words in my mouth friend. Again, what I will consider is that God will allow one to succumb to their own aggression.
hyro writes: What about these:
quote: quote: quote: quote: Are these all songs too? The first three are taken on a prophetic stance. The would be victims are all Yisraelis who have misrepresented the heart and will of God. That 'God's chosen people' are the ones being laid to waste seems to suggest God doesn't play favorites as some would have us believe. They show, once more, that God will allow one to succumb to their own aggression. The Nevi'im seem, to me, much more consistent than the priestly traditions.
Do you have an excuse why murder, infanticide, rape, and torture is not only condoned, but commanded? I have no excuses hyro. What I have is an educated understanding of how the prophets anticipated God's unwillingness to sit back and watch injustice. Perhaps I also feel that I have a certain understanding - as do you, but mine concerns the style that was often employed throughout prophetic utterance. The character of Yisraeli governance was often condemned and called into question by the Prophets of ancient Yisrael as a hypocritical charade intended to divert the people into sterile activities and the hollowness of religion and its dogmas, and so subvert the pursuit of true justice in the land. Notice how Isaiah asserts that 'no amount of silver or gold will buy {the Medes} off'? This infers an earlier time when bribery and extortion ruled Yisrael. According to the prophet, God was not happy about it and was willing to allow the Yisraelites to succumb to their own aggression and social misjustice. Even the last example you provide, found in the law books which are replete with documented edit and forgery, is a warning against Yisrael. Would you like to place these passages within their original context, together? Start a thread and I'll try to spend some time in it with you.
hyro writes: weary writes:
If those songs merely talking about nationalistic poison is tragic ... Please stop regurgitating poisonous nationalist ideologies, it's bad for your health - lol What I feel is tragic is when a nation or a people go out of their way to misrepresent the heart and will of God, thinking they will somehow benefit.
... what must you think when God says it? That God is unwilling to cater towards social misjustice.
hyro writes: weary writes:
Clearly it hasn't since I have more than sufficiently substantiated my argument at this point. Obviously, anyone who doesn't worship angry Yisraeli's or poems as a 'god' can do that. Your argument seems to be failing this time around ol' boy. Perhaps you have. I'll let the audience, made up of critical thinkers and dogmatics alike, be the judge. Yet, later in this very post, you'll hand this victory to me and I will share with you the spoils of our work.
hyro writes: weary writes:
So then you assert that the bible is not infallible, in which case, how is it that you use them to make a point in your arguments? Btw, I'm not a proponent of the christian/catholic sola scriptura, otherwise known as the doctrine of the 'infallible Word of God'. I've suggested the roman bible as an infallible witness of sorts. Making a stride towards understanding who speaks what to who - and why, is critical.
If the bible is not infallible, then how do you know which one's are accurate and come from God versus which one's are written by man to suit man's agendas? In any case, one may gain a better understanding by taking some sort of definitive stance concerning the heart and will of the character in question. That being, as far as my understanding goes, that God is unwilling to cater to social misjustice, and will not let forgeries go undocumented ... Regardless of the persistent attempts carried out through the malignant aggression on behalf of dogmatics who certainly wish they would have.
How is that any different from Al Qaeda who claims to be doing God's work when they slaughter people in his holy name? Ok - you got me. It is obvious that because I will not succumb to your sola scriptura that I'm some sort of terrorist. I get that from dogmatics constantly. It doesn't change the fact that the roman bible has been edited multiple times to serve a variety of agendas or that the book contains that witness. And that many people nullify those portions of the text, will not change the fact either. It is sad that people decide to take an all or nothing stance. I understand that it's a fear based mentality massaged and promoted by the church and those who believe them, over the more critical evidence.
hyro writes: weary writes:
If you want my honest opinion, I think none of it actually comes from God. God's role in the Tehillim is as a listener. Again, they are an offering to God, not from God. Are you unable or unwilling to concede to that notion? Not to imply that I agree with you on the whole, but ...
I think the scriptures are man's invention to give power and credence to their own agendas, just like all the pagan religions before them. ... now we're gettin' to some level playing field - lol
If you really want to assert that God didn't command such things because the Psalms are a collection of poems, know that I don't buy it for a second ... Duly noted.
... but I'll allow you a small victory. You can have the Psalm argument ... I appreciate it, I guess. If you will, divide and enjoy these spoils with me. Honestly, this isn't about winning to me, as much as it is about allowing a spirit of truth to flourish through a more critical analysis of these various texts. That is not to imply, by any means, that I indeed know the TruthTM, but rather that, much like you if I may suppose, I'm not quick to believe the corporation. Again, I have more faith that, as I submit my conscience and intellect to God, I will be assisted by a spirit of truth more honest than the former.
... since the bible is chock full of unambiguous instances where God revels in unspeakable atrocities. It certainly is my friend. Yet, my conscience does not quickly allow me to assign the unspeakable towards the heart of God. Mankind on the other hand ...
hyro writes: weary writes:
It's in the bible, Bailey, you know, the most beloved collection of books in the world, which is the supposed to be the very Word of God. The author of the poem is then, basically, putting out a hit of sorts, as you reasoned before. They are fuckin' pissed bro. Apparently this specific author learned nothing by captivity and defeat, except how to be more idolatrous and miserable. Perhaps this crew was unwilling to catch on to reality. As you seem to understand - and I would tend to partially agree, these texts are often politically motivated. The 'very Word of God' served Rome well. However, I have no desire to partake in nationalism and have identified that these ancient Jewish texts were formed into a book paid for by Constantine.
You can minimize this if you want, but I think you and I both know the significance of this. Perhaps you're justified in veiwing my stance as a reduction of sorts, but it may be - just as quickly, construed as a minimalism of political manipulation. Again, I get that shit all the time for not bowing to the 'sacred' doctrines of Rome and her illegitimate step children. Usually, it's from christian sects though. While I may recognize, what I perceive as, dogmatic tendencies in your debate, I don't identify you as a christian, and so, I tend to become a bit confused. I'm sure my lack of patience with dogmatics and abundance of sarcasm doesn't always serve me - or others, well, but that's something I need to work on.
hyro writes: weary writes:
How would you know either way? If you worship bitter nationalists, then, perhaps, I can understand your perspective. However, I do not worship bitter nationalists. After reading the bible a few times, as far as I can tell, God wrote on a couple of tablets which he gave to Moses, the Prophets spoke out on God's behalf regarding social injustice and then Joshua the Anointed One spoke on the Father's behalf. So then, bitter priests just made attempts to stuff the rest of this shit in God's mouth. Again, I have taken a definitive stance on the character, the heart and the will of God. That being, God will not cater to those who promote social misjustice. So then, when I encounter a passage - after rendering my conscience and intellect to God, that conflicts with the outcome of my evolved conscience and intellect, in regards to social misjustice, I must begin asking questions. I am, by no means, infallible, but I do trust God more than mankind or myself.
The bible is what is used to know the mind of God. An interesting perspective, albeit a bit ambiguous by nature. Personally, I'm thankful to have developed a relationship with God long before I ever found out about that ol' book or made any attempt towards understanding what is actually taking place within it's pages. In the end, reality is my canon hyro - to me, the bible is a chapter in that book. And yes, I know that's considered a cop out by imperialists, nationalists, catholics and christians - and many others, alike. There is a sense within me that suggests sola scriptura is as much of a cop out on their parts as well, perhaps motivated by a fear of reality and justice.
If it is fallible, then what you think you know about God is therefore nullified by your own admission. Again, that only holds if I believe you - that the bible is, somehow, a greater authority concerning the TruthTM of our existence than reality itself. Thankfully, I don't subscribe to that doctrine. As I said, God was in my heart long before the pages within the bible made their way into my mind.
See the dilemma with it? Yep - perdy shitty. It seems to me, like a cryin' shame, that people trust the political motivations of mankind over the witness of God - that being, the prophets and reality.
If you go the infallible route, you have to suffer the consequences for all the ugly and contradictory verses in the bible and try to make excuses for them. I have already addressed this, and ...
If you go the fallible route, you emasculate the entire bible, for how would you know which scriptures are from God and which are from men claiming to be from God? ... this. So, I'll leave them for now.
It's a no-win situation, friend. If not for my faith in God's ability to heal one's mind and guide them into a more full understanding of reality, I would have agreed. Again, I'm thankful to not have been indoctrinanted at a young age.
I for one am not envious of your position. As far as I can reason ... Your position, as one who has, perhaps, been proselytized - before seeking the character, the heart and the will of God, into accepting the idea of sola scriptura, as presented in the poli-religious arena, seems unworthy of envy as well. However, I don't believe all people will rot in such putrid beliefs, but rather, I have abundant faith many will pursue the eradication of social misjustice caused by fear based poli-religious doctrines such as 'sola scriptura'. My hope and prayer, then, is that many will not throw out the baby with the bath water, as it were, after becoming completely and totally frustrated by the deceit, ignorance, naivety and nullification of evidence constantly and consistently promoted and promulagated by those weak minded fear mongers. Again, thanks for the exchange hyro, and - peace to you bud. One Love I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker. If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice' They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself? Think for yourself. Mercy Trumps Judgement,Love Weary
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024