One person must represent humanity for intrinsic value. Best one who faith for us. Who can bring pass? Are any of you familiar with spirits? Know spirit, for example. What about guide wolf who would be his own state? Simple man, "tool box." This is what the Native Man brought. To me. Can you believe? EDIT: Just now, in my head. :shrug: Can you believe what it takes to exist? Given the imagination. Does In Love have to exist to exist here in a logical state? This pioneer says without a doubt.
Hey want money? Let me post here, simple and plain. Its all about your values. Can you imagine such a thing as start straight from the top? Don't work around going for side chicks, get the top bitch not going over your head for a dominant female, and not offending the sex of a mate. I met a man who can't do this, this spirit would be strong, its a state of mind. They exist in a heavenly estate, do not touch. Stay out of Quanta. Let me go on. These estates, they don't originate on earth. You can not have this. Can you believe what it takes to exist here. What is Earth to an angel?
Dude, if you don't know what pramanas are, then I think you need to take a long hard look at yourself and rethink your approach to posting here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pramana And carefully read this: http://www.suhotraswami.net/library/Doubt_and_Certainty_in_Krsna_Consciousness.pdf
If you would invest a fraction of the effort you put into patronizing me and deeming yourself superior to me, instead into studying the terms and texts I am referring you to (and which actually explain what you yourself otherwise try to get at), it would help you a great deal.
I'll be the judge of whether it will help me. But in the mean time I'm asking you to explain what it is you mean without resorting to sanskrit. Is that too much to ask? jan.
When you talk about the Bible and call us names and otherwise denigrate us if we don't comply with your explanation, what pramana do you think your explanation is?
Unless you are a superfast reader, given the time between my posting the links and the time when you posted saying you read them, I suspect that you have not read them. From now on, I will also expect that you are familiar with the Sanskrit terminology used there.
You talk about KNOW in the grandest sense, which is know all, so what about FAITH? Don't say anything because you are ignorant, you are all omniscient. Try relaxing 500 people at once, the world is a nightmare. If you can pull out the FAITH to be here, you can do so with a KNOW. You can't begin to attempt a shade out of your own reality. We are all unique here, you have to ask why. Can a man be SCIENCE in the broadest terms what so ever? To a t? Can PERFECTION exist? Where did the universe come from if but In Love? Look in the face of a shih tzu, do they display what would be childish in nature traits to man who would display things like BIG, or HELPFUL? Can we be good & evil publicly on this forum?
This analogy fails at every level. For one, believing a man can fly is not a prerequisite to enjoying a Superman movie. I thoroughly enjoyed the Superman films in my youth, and I knew all the while that it was all special effects. For the bible to mean anything to anyone, it must either be taken completely out of context and infused with modern values, or one must actually believe that it represents historical truth. Particularly the passages condemning people for unbelief. Where is the context I'm missing there? Staying in line with your stupid analogy, what point am I missing in the condemnation because I don't believe in God? You're a bit off-base. You noticed he wasn't actually named Immanuel, right? That's because the "name" in the prophecy refers to titles, or what people will say of him. The differentiation in the John verse between believing in Jesus and believing in his name appears to be one that is not always highlighted, and that is the difference between his acts and deeds, and his claims. In other words, John is saying that one must not just believe that Jesus is doing what people are saying he's doing, but also that he really is the son of God. You can't hedge your bets, you must believe in all of it. No, because belief is not an action. I could act as if God doesn't exist while really believing in him, and also act as if he does exist while not believing in him. What we are condemned for is belief. We are condemned for acts, as well, but belief in particular is highlighted as the difference between damnation and salvation, and that is not an act. One can show faith through acts, but one does not need to in order to have faith. And as I've been saying all along, it is not us who condemn ourselves. God created the gambit, so it is God who ultimately decides who goes and who doesn't. It's his choice, not ours. By the same token, I could ask what unbelief looks like, what that action entails. You would likely repeat your previous statement of "acting as if," to which I would respond that belief is also "acting as if," just in the opposite direction. But I think we both understand that this is not belief. It is merely action. You've manage to type two paragraphs and yet say nothing. What context are we missing? Wait wait wait wait waitwaitwait. Nobody believes Superman can really fly. There is no "for the sake of the movie." People who love superhero movies and comic books do not simply pretend for an hour or two that people can fly. They are constantly aware that they are watching actors on a screen, or looking at pictures on paper. No one simply forgets that people don't really fly. Gibberish. Word salad. This really has descending into the absurd. You certainly didn't get any of this imaginary "belief vs belief" crap from scripture, so I'm not going to bother arguing with you about it. You can't even explain it in a coherent way, so even if I wanted to challenge you on it, I would be throwing darts in the dark. So let's go ahead and assume, for argument's sake, that you're right. Let's say that there are two kinds of people--those who innately believe and have no say in the matter, and those who don't innately believe and must therefore make a conscious decision about their faith. So then, by your own count, the only people who risk salvation or redemption are those who can, at best, believe in God for superficial reasons. Not to mention the fact that if this were the case, it's still up to God to decide who innately "gets it" and who doesn't, thus once again creating a gambit in which man can fail. You apologists really should just accept the fact that this whole bit about man condemning himself is a contradiction, an error in the lore, and get on with it. You overlook the stuff about mixed fabrics and shell fish, so why not just add this part to the list?
Balerion, I didn't say it was. What matters is the prophecy was fulfilled, so Jesus IS ''Immanuel'' because of his person. Belief is the reason behind actions. I'm sure you could eat pooh with a smile on your face, but it doesn't mean you enjoy it. IOW, it's just a big fat lie.
