|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,765 Year: 4,022/9,624 Month: 893/974 Week: 220/286 Day: 27/109 Hour: 3/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is it moral for God to punish us? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Greatest I am Member (Idle past 300 days) Posts: 1676 Joined: |
Phat
Jesus said, be ye like children. KIS. Joseph Campbell has a short piece you might like.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGx4IlppSgU Tell me please. Who told you you were not relevant to the universe? Ask any of your friends and relatives if that is so. They will not agree. RegardsDL
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Greatest I am Member (Idle past 300 days) Posts: 1676 Joined: |
Dear heart.
There is a quote somewhere that says that ridicule is the only think one can use against ridiculous notions. I do not want to do that with you. Please forgive. Talking animals and water walking humans that are real sons of some real invisible God do not belong in history books. Odin as a real God would not be fitting as well. Don't you agree? Listen to your own bible. John 6 ; 63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. The bible speaks to the spirit world which begins inside of you. Luke 11:52 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered. When you are ready to find your real God, you go inside of yourself. That is where Gnosis is. Follow your bible. Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light. John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. Luke 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you. Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. RegardsDL
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Greatest I am Member (Idle past 300 days) Posts: 1676 Joined: |
Faith
Why are there only 4 gospels and not the original plethora? Biblical Errancy: Why Four Gospels? RegardsDL
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
GIA,
I know what I believe and why I believe it. I dispensed with Gnosticism early in my study of religions, that finally got me to Bible Protestantism. Friends gave me books about Gnosticism hoping to dissuade me from the direction they could see I was going. The truth is not in the gnostic direction. I don't know why everyone makes a big deal out of a talking snake. God also had a donkey speak. Nobody claims such things are natural, they are special situations and God can certainly do such things. Silly to object to them. Jesus walking on the water, all that is historical. The spirit John is writing of is not the spirit WORLD which is Satan's domain, it's the human spirit that has been regenerated through Jesus' death on our behalf so that the communication between God and man that Adam and Eve lost can be resumed. It's important to learn how to discern the difference between satanic spirit and God's spirit. You read the passages you quote with a spin that is not orthodox. I certainly know those passages and how to understand them, it's odd that you would think your interpretation is new to me. So many people say to trust the Bible who really mean read it they way they do, as if their way is the only way. Things you've already said many times show you to have a mindset I reject completely and have no hope of affecting. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The Biblical canon was determined by the usage of the many early churches through their spiritual discernment of which writings were inspired. They rejected writings that did not have the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, which they had the ability to judge because they had the Holy Spirit in them. Over time the collection of books judged as inspired by the various churches became clearer, although there was always some uncertainty about some of the books. Eventually after many years the canon came together as the books most often judged inspired by the churches. There was no conspiracy, which is what I suppose you are implying.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Greatest I am Member (Idle past 300 days) Posts: 1676 Joined: |
Faith
We are getting a ways off topic but one last on this trail. What does your understanding of this passage tell you. Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light. RegardsDL
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The single eye is the eye fixed on God instead of wavering between desire for God and earthly desires.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Greatest I am Member (Idle past 300 days) Posts: 1676 Joined: |
Faith
Where does our weakness for earthly desires come from? RegardsDL
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The sin nature or fallen nature we all inherit from our first father Adam.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Greatest I am Member (Idle past 300 days) Posts: 1676 Joined: |
Faith
You and I do not read scriptures to the same conclusion and so I leave you with these. Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. Deuteronomy 24:16 (ESV) "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin. Ezekiel 18:20 (ESV) The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself. The declaration which says that God visits the sins of the fathers upon the children is contrary to every principle of moral justice. [Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason] We seem to agree on the odd thing but literalists used to kill Gnostic Christians when they could for good reasons, to literalists. RegardsDL
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2157 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
Greatest writes:
What evidence do you have that there was an "original plethora"? FaithWhy are there only 4 gospels and not the original plethora? Biblical ErrancyRegards DL The early church fathers quote from all of the four canonical gospels by the early to mid second century, and some of these quotes go back to the first century. Thus the four canonical gospels were written by the early to mid second century; many scholars believe that they were written in the first century. The gnostic gospels were written later. They come from the latter part of the second century or the third century. There was no "original plethora" of gospels. There were four original gospels, followed by a later plethora of gnostic writings. As I've mentioned earlier, it is misleading to call these gnostic writings "gospels". This implies that they are similar to the canonical gospels, which they are not. They are merely collections of random sayings, which is radically different from the canonical gospels."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
kbertsche writes:
You seem to be using a self-serving definition of "gospel".
As I've mentioned earlier, it is misleading to call these gnostic writings "gospels".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2157 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
ringo writes:
No, I'm just pointing out that the gnostic "gospels" have a completely different structure and style than the canonical gospels. (If you've read both, these differences should be glaringly obvious.) Calling them both "gospels" is very misleading. kbertsche writes:
You seem to be using a self-serving definition of "gospel".
As I've mentioned earlier, it is misleading to call these gnostic writings "gospels".
The gnostic "gospels" are collections of sayings. In this aspect they are probably similar to the hypothesized "Q". We don't call Q a "gospel", but a "source" or a "collection of sayings." In the same way, it would be more accurate and less misleading to refer to the gnostic "gospels" as gnostic "collections of sayings". The gnostic "gospels" may be analogous to Q, but they are in no way analogous to the canonical gospels."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
kbertsche writes:
And yet they are called gospels. Calling them both "gospels" is very misleading. You're distinguishing "gospel" from "collection of sayings" apparently in an attempt to discount the gnostic gospels - i.e. to suggest that there was no "original plethora" of gospels. What we're talking about here is information about Jesus' life. I don't think it's legitimate to nitpick about how the information was presented.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2157 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
ringo writes:
Yes, and this is very odd. Perhaps the devotees of the gnostic "gospels" want to muddy the waters, and make people think that these are in some way analogous to the canonical gospels? kbertsche writes:
And yet they are called gospels.
Calling them both "gospels" is very misleading. Have you actually read any of the canonical gospels, and any of the gnostic gospels??
ringo writes:
Scholars don't refer to Q as a "gospel", but as a "collection of sayings". They do this not to discount Q, but to distinguish it from the canonical gospels, which are radically different than a mere collection of sayings.
You're distinguishing "gospel" from "collection of sayings" apparently in an attempt to discount the gnostic gospels ringo writes:
Do you have any evidence that there actually was an "original plethora" of gospels? Do you have evidence that the gnostic gospels date to the first or early second centuries? If so, please present your evidence. - i.e. to suggest that there was no "original plethora" of gospels. What we're talking about here is information about Jesus' life. I don't think it's legitimate to nitpick about how the information was presented."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024