a question of respect.

Is it your belief that compassion requires a casuation seperate from its own nature?

Why do you think the action must be either kind or cruel?

Do you believe the human nature is solely one of reason?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Semantics. Is the speed of light being equal to c questionable simply because people question how it could be so?

Either one or the other? Are there no other possibilities?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's not semantics at all. Don't for one second think you can make the comparison that you have. For millennia people have, and still do, question the bible - and while you might think it's all as you consider it, I can assure you millions upon millions of other people do not - the thousands, if not tens of thousands, of different christian sects is proof of that.

Certainly.. Why, I even left out the only realistic angle - (there's no such thing as gods, nor was there a garden, a talking snake, or a demi god born from a virgin). However, in the context of discussion, (mainly with Jenyar), I feel that those two are sufficient: god either did make a plan or didn't.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'd thought that the very nature of compassion is to be caused, derived from respect.

Because of the context, the talk of harm and defense, Hell and the Devil.
Because of water's disapproval of magnanimity, her ill tempered intolerance, her failure to appreciate small mercies that others would be glad for.

That was the rather the impression I had of this:

It appears to assume a World deviod of a belief in the efficacy of affection and compassion, changes induced by qualities beyond belief.

I was rather disposed to credit water with a sincere atttempt to understand her own beliefs.

Do you think she had never tried to?

Religious belief is a personality issue.

-- Ron.

 

Suppose there was a universe. Perhaps this universe existed in spacial dimensions we literally cannot concieve of. Maybe beings in this universe reached such a stage as to make our understanding of our own universe seem like that of bacteria.

Imagine these beings "toying" with the creation of various tailored spacetimes with different properties, just to see what the different outcomes might be. To verify their theoretical predictions so to speak. Also suppose that, from time to time, these beings intervened in the workings of their experiment in order to tweak a parameter or two when something interesting happened (like the development of "intelligent" bits of matter).

I suppose these beings would be the equivalent of gods, with no plan that we would recognize, but certainly not halfwits. Of course, this is just as likely as the FSM. Fun to think about though.

Sorry for the interruption.

 

If the many sects are proof that the verses you mentioned are questionable, then in which sects were those verses the cause of division?

Is the scenario in which "God did make a plan" limitted to example you gave?

I would have thought that the nature of respect is to be derived from compassion.

So then context and others limits the possibility of classification of an action?

They were statements devoid of any belief except that man, to some extent, is rational. They were intended to fit any set of beliefs, even a set of beliefs in which compassion and affection are seen as a weakness.

Simply understanding one's own beliefs is but a single step.

 

Never derived because of fear or jealousy?

What is going on when somebody says "I will teach you some respect"?

Do fools classify as fools see fit, or could anyone wield the sword of truth?

To me it is tautology, that a context limits, but perhaps I miss your point.

But your original proposition seemed to suggest that it is possible to act upon a belief but with no awareness of the belief, and I fail then to see why that not would not apply to any statement.

It comes down to what you know, the diagnosis.

Did you think that water never tried to understand her own beliefs?

You seem to dodge that in order to dodge the point: When you offer particular advice to somebody it seems to imply that the advice is both pertinent and not already sufficiently considered, and this tends to cause offence. Some people are especially sensitive to unsolicited advice, already sick to death of it.

That is where the respect comes into it.

Do you know what she wants and does it matter?

--- Ron.

 

Catholicism equates to brainwashing. I was decidely unlucky to be sent to a Catholic school, having been "baptised" into that religion without my permission! There was no teaching as such, it was all doom and gloom and brainwashing little ones with the threat of hellfire and damnation. The bible was FACT, the Catechism was FACT; there would be NO discussion, nothing. These same people who endeavoured to brainwash me also used the cane as a means to an end, oh yes, I was a recipient on a few occasions.

 

Let's just revisit the extent of this debate. Let me know if I've missed something. At the moment your argument seems to be based on an English application of the word "hate", as it apears in Luke 14:26 (although such an application is obviously contrary to the parallel passage of Matt. 10:37 and similar usage in the Bible). When the contextual evidence makes your application seem unlikely, your explanation is that "even Jesus has his off days". If an "obvious bias" alone settles any argument, then yours comes off no better than mine.

Another aspect of your argument is the issue of division, which I think you've realized by now I don't deny. The division Jesus would bring fused all division before or since together into a overriding moral division (Hebrews 4:12, cf. Rev. 1:16) - and therefore one that could cut even the bonds of family and friends. As I explained, Jesus would polarize those who would turn against sin at his request, and those who would turn against him because he dares request. You came to the logical conclusion: people who aren't sick don't need a doctor - something Jesus himself affirmed (Mark 2:17). But to those who recognize his diagnosis, he is usually a welcome saviour. All of this fits what was known even before Jesus had said anything:

Then Simeon blessed them and said to Mary, his mother: "This child is destined to cause the falling and rising of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be spoken against, so that the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed. And a sword will pierce your own soul too." (Luke 2:34-35)​

A distinction must be made here, so I should have made myself a little clearer. You may consult many translations of the Bible, but your argument depends on one translation of Luke 14:26 that all of them share: the non-idiomatic translation. You're therefore appealing to a false "majority", since it's actually a repetition of the same "literal" translation. When translators (and even other authors in the Bible itself) render the accurate meaning into English, to reject that translation you would have to question their motives or their expertise. That's the conspiracy theory I hope you'll avoid.

On the one hand, you have a translation (echoed in all the literal "translations" of the Bible) of the single word "hate"; on the other, you have the idiomatic translation (echoed in other passages, paraphrases, commentaries and contextual readings), which renders the meaning as "love less". And even then it's not without qualification.

I personally think what the text says should be decided first, before we jump to conclusions about its "negative light" - although I have no illusions that Jesus can and will be seen in a negative light no matter how we interpret it. His existence and his message by itself is usually offensive enough for those with enough at stake to be offended, like Paul said: to some he has the fragrance of life, to others he has the smell of death (2 Cor. 2:16).

Your premise decides what conclusions you may logically draw. You're trying to keep the advantages of one premise (that Jesus was a mere man) and find fault with the conclusions of another premise (that Jesus was divine). That only makes for a contorted argument. If you want to say Jesus was confused, then say so, but a confused man can't be blamed for not being divine enough (i.e. not miraculously bringing peace in the world). If you take up the Bible's premise that Jesus was Lord, then you must necessarily examine his words and actions in that (unique) context.

I asked something you didn't answer below: "If preaching something will bring fierce opposition, how does saying so make opposition the object of preaching? Shouldn't you actually take the subject into account?"

In other words, if Jesus' teaching required a clear separation between good and evil in order to promote good, why play the part of a hypocrite who makes that distinction (between what's good and what's bad) himself, while condemning the action (of separating the two) as promoting the opposite of good? Doesn't that hurt your case in the worst possible way?

You make the distinction between the "good" and the "bad" Jesus, a distinction you manage despite him putting the same moral division he taught into practical effect, dying for a universal good at the hands of a universal evil. For him it was a spiritual distinction, something between man and God, not a political one - and he asserted it spiritually, not politically. His focus on moral obedience (at the cost of any other priority) leading to an inner, practical peace - was unacceptable and impractical to those who expected the messiah to bring a physical revolution (which would lead to an artificial, "enforced" peace) - yet that is the goal you accuse him of, perhaps even of worse.

John 18:37
"You are a king, then!" said Pilate. Jesus answered, "You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me."​

This rather seems to support my interpretation that the division was the result of his coming, not the goal.

Interesting you should say that, because Jesus did say:

John 12:47 "As for the person who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge him. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it.​

The "fire, sword and war" in Thomas has clear apocalyptic undertones (especially if it's also the fulfilment of a prophecy, as Matthew suggests). The end time events Jesus spoke of in Luke 21 would precede his kingdom on earth, coming over everyone like Noah's flood. The implication is that it is the reality that will also become our judgement if we don't take God up on his offer of salvation. All these elements are present in the vision of Jesus making war against Satan (Rev. 19:11-19).

Since you've obviously imagined something better, whether you're God or not, would you care to share it? It surely involves not making your plans known, because that's bound to divide people, except that's another common critique against God - us not knowing his plans.

That's strange, since Hebrews 1:3 is one of the clearest indications we have of Jesus' divinity. The real challenge, as far as I'm concerned, is to consider all passages together, and with the intended meaning of their authors to reproduce a holistic model of what they believed and were reporting. They can't make our minds up for us one way or the other.

If it doesn't apply to you, great. If I said "this is yours", you would only have to reply with "no, it's not" to settle the matter. But I do reserve the right to make my particular claims, just like you reserve the right to make yours.

This is by far the most logical argument you've made so far. And indeed, "He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake" (1 Pet. 1:20) and "was slain from the creation of the world" (Rev. 13:8). But that's not all: "from the beginning God chose you to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth" (2 Thess. 2:13). That means that the mechanism was in place since day one, as God intended. But as sin became greater and greater, the amount that needed to be done to maintain that relationship also became greater, until man was beyond any ability to save himself, and God's natural love had to take a drastic form: His sacrifice. Where we didn't need salvation or sacrifice before sin, we needed it now. The same love God had for us before we sinned is what was expressed through Christ - since it was already made in principle - and the same commitment that God required before the fall is required after the fall.

Faith in God would have indicated the normal state of things before the fall (peace with God and each other), and for the same reason it must bind us to God and each other after the fall - but where before it wouldn't have caused a fly to blink, now such faith alienates faithful followers from anything or anyone who are still hostile to God... especially if it means the difference between depending on God or on Caesar for spiritual, political and personal wealth or security, as it did for Jesus' followers. Someties the division simply means not understanding each other, other times it means active persecution and even death, but either way, the Christian's role is spelled out clearly: to live in peace and be peacemakers.

There's nothing wrong with being imperfect by human standards, and God measures perfection by relationships. Man became imperfect when he rebelled, and Jesus came to restore our perfection (or to "perfect us" - often through our weaknesses).

You jump between different perspectives here - our perspective, God's perspective, and Jesus' perspective, while he was on earth with us. They're not all on the same level or timeframe. If the sword Jesus came to bring was already there, what did he bring? So that must fit within the greater perspective of the suffering that resulted from sin, which Jesus came to remedy - like a doctor performing painful operation on someone already in pain. The side-effect is that what was for the most part meaningless suffering and injustice suddenly became meaningful (even if it didn't become any easier to bear). Where we were once the victims of generations of sin before us, suffering the consequences of our forefathers' actions and often just perpetuating it, it can now come to mean discipline, salvation and even redemption for someone who identifies with Christ. For people who don't believe in God, it can be a good representation of hell - life without hope, and meaningless suffering punctuated by death - (at least, for those who believe in hell but not in God). For everybody else, it must simply be what it is - it cannot be unjust or unfair or cruel, because "it" doesn't have a will. "It" could be the force of evolution, cause and effect, karma, or perhaps even some cruel god, but whatever "it" is, it's the flood that Christ conquered in order to be our Noah's ark.

As I explained, the further the distance from God, the greater the cost of restoring the relationship became. In the end, God paid the price himself, so that we could continue to live by faith in Him. If that faith has a cost, it's because we still have something invested in the world, and the cost is the sacrifice it takes to let it go. We don't owe it to God, but to ourselves.

On the contrary - that peace is available right now. It may alienate us from the world, but isn't that perhaps why it's able to bring peace?

Then you're making a circular argument. "I don't respect your faith because Jesus brought division and it's because Jesus brought division that I don't respect your faith." Is that it?

While I enjoy the relationships I'm able to have with friends and family because of the Christian legacy - and can find no other reason for having been blessed with them - I make no claims of having attained it myself. It's more like I've discovered a great treasure in a field, and rather than stealing it, I'm working to take possession of what I already found by investing everything I have to buy the field. The goal is close by, but the toil and effort to reach it is no less than working for someone or something else.

 

First and foremost, I cannot understand why so called christians cannot make a point without refering to quotes from such a dubious, oft amended, book like the bible.

You tell us that you enjoy relationships THANKs to your Christian legacy. Sorry, Christianity is an excuse, not a reason. Surely your capable of making decisions not based on some passage in your bible? If not, then your life is shallow. I have many friends, more than I can count, all over the planet, some close, some just friends and not one of them was led to me, or vice versa, by Jesus or anyone else divine like.

You go to church whenever, make your sincerity platitudes, tell everyone how much in gods grace you are and then go home and moan about the noisy neighbours, swear when you bang your knee on that damned coffee table and possibly support a leader who sends your youth to war, to die.

 

Suppose there was an invisible pink unicorn...

I guess it's my dislike for "suppose", (although admittedly I'm sure I have used it on occasion), that causes me the problems with religious people. While Jan might very well think he is speaking for the mass majority of 'his kind', it is one of a gazillion of different "suppose's" that I have been given - and indeed mine is just another one - yet in this instance we actually have a written "suppose" to work with. To a christian such as Jan, god is either unaware and in a position where others can, and do, better him, or he has a master plan that must be fulfilled exactly as planned in order for it to have been omnisciently planned, and for the goal to come to fruition. Every sentence from jesus, every law, event and action must have been the exact way for things to happen else that plan wouldn't have been an omniscient plan. Man had to fail, had to get drowned etc etc in order for there ever to have been a jesus to die for your, (not you specifically), forgiveness.

But I also personally accept a man at his word. If a man says he is here to kick the ever living shit out of my mother, I don't assume he's just saying that some people might not like my mother - indeed it is a threat from this specific man against my mother.

"I have not come to bring peace but a sword" is a specific statement - not implying that some people might not like jesus, but that his purpose was to cause the descension among mankind that has ensued.

Is that a "suppose"? I suppose so, but then it is all we have.

But therein lies the daftness of it all. You and I could sit here and conjure up a gazillion and one different ideas and beliefs and "suppose's" and yet for what? Thing of it is, those "suppose's" make billions. Those "suppose's" rule lives, are shoved upon your kids. Hell, even Hubbard - a guy busy with his lovely work of fiction can start one of these "suppose's" that actually gains a few million ardent supporters.

It's a "suppose" free for all. Who gives a shit what's real and what ain't, it all comes down to how good your agent is. And while Jan will laugh and agree; "Hubbard, lol.. what a twat - and his followers, lol.. what twats", he doesn't realise he and they are one and the same. His only 'saving grace' is that his beliefs agent is a hell of a lot older - and thus knew less, but sold better. Even Hitler sold a few tickets - and that's where it becomes scary.

Someone here provided a link to the Dawkins programme - and there's an interesting part in it where he questions some priesty bloke about visitors to that place where the water "supposedly" heals people. The guy says 80,000 people visit per year, and in 150 years of doing so there are 60 recorded 'miracles'.

The priesty bloke doesn't even notice the utter idiocy in that mathematics - and still, drones upon drones of twerps go there trying to undo the bad that has befallen them - which is all, ("supposedly"), because of god's will anyway.

The problem is that the "suppose" is permanently backed up. If shit hits the fan it's "gods plan" or "god works in mysterious ways". The day one person finally survives his cancer it's an act of god's mercy, or proof that "supposed" god exists.

It's lunacy. As a doctor, I see this kind of lunacy frequently. Fortunately it doesn't usually survive long in the open - is caught, diagnosed, treated, (as much as we can), and contained. What we have now is a couple of billion lunatics out in the open. If people would recognise that, the medical establishment wouldn't have to create a billion different mental conditions every 5 minutes. "Hey, you get depressed during winter?" We give it a name, we diagnose it, we, (often), prescribe sale.

Although perhaps not the thing I should say, who cares who gets a little upset in winter? It's the religious that scare me - what with all that "supposing".

-----------

You want me to go through that many thousand? And indeed that many billion personal understandings?

All it ever takes is a sentence - as you should be aware. From trinity to golden teeth. One sentence seems to be enough for you folk, and yet from me, (with more than one sentence), it's unacceptable.

Hell no. If I wanted to have a debate with myself I'd just do it in notepad, so why don't you give me it straight?

-------------

Incorrect. My application seems to be on an educated and majority understanding of the translation of an ancient text into English. Some guy on the internet telling me "hate" doesn't mean "hate" - as decided by the majority of qualified translators, doesn't mean a whole heck of a lot.

C'mon Jan, you've done one sentence and got it wrong...

Much like not working Sabbath and "it's ok" are obviously contradictory. Such is the bible - and that cannot be helped given the amount of writers and time frame.

Inaccurate. With regards to the bible and jesus, you are simply incapable of looking at any other angle. I have and will welcome discussion about the good teachings, about jesus' 'good' teachings. You are utterly incapable of doing the opposite in return.

Do you disagree?

But do you agree that this 'division' is "well, some people wont accept jesus", or that jesus came to make it so?

Sorry, hate to intrude - but was I supposed to be impressed by someone saying people who aren't sick don't need a doctor? Oh you and jesus are such info givers. Lol.

"It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick".

Way to go jesus!

At this point it is worth noticing that I haven't in any way declined his intelligence or indeed godliness, (which is rare from an atheist). The issue does not lie here, but with his purpose, his function, what he came to do. Judging by his own words, he came to bring the sword, not peace.

But all you're doing here is asking me, or indeed telling me, to accept your 'version' of that translation - that clearly seems to be harder than it looks - given that the majority, according to you, have royally fucked it up. While I would bow down to you Jen, I would ask right now that you back it up. I would love for you to go head to head with all these translators and tell them they're wrong. From my position, where do I get my unchangeable absolute word of god from? Clearly not the same version you do.

So, a few months ago I came up with an idea. Everyone seems to have a problem with the bible. Everyone has one - nobody has ever read it - and if they have, it's undoubted that their understanding conflicts with a few million other people. I decided the only fair thing to do was to write a modern man's bible. A bible that everyone could read and understand. The only problem is.. Who's understanding should I work from? Clearly not the dozen or so bibles I currently own - because Jen says so. Admittedly therefore, I have become a little stuck - but have worked briefly on a first part - written in modern day lingo, for modern day man. Tell me what you think, (it is long for 3 pages of a book).

If you would like to continue, please ask. Obviously I have really had to work to an absolute finish for each chapter considering the sheer length of the bible, but with some time and patience I shall have finally done what nobody else could - written a bible for modern man. A bible where Snake and Jen won't sit down and argue what it does or does not say, oh what joy. Of course my only problem is: do I work from your bible or mine?

Indeed.. Great conspiracy that they (pretty much), all used "hate" when they actually meant "cozy". Fuck off. <-- btw, that actually means hello. Still, please continue and question their motives and expertise. Sorry, what were you saying?

Essential question to proceed: Can you ever consider jesus in a negative light?

I didn't say he was a "mere man". I am here giving you the benefit of the doubt. The debate is over his statements, (as a god or demi god). Try to keep up.

Certainly. That would also include everything in the OT. Lord is Lord.

Certainly, but given that I still await an answer to a question I asked you two posts ago, your hypocricy wont work.

Ok, perhaps it will.

"If preaching something will bring fierce opposition"..

Preaching something, anything, will always bring opposition. Shit, we couldn't even go a week without some people protesting about petrol charge rises no matter how much the government preached it as being good. Didn't bother me in the slightest - I don't drive.

However - given the circumstance.. If Tony Blair said: "I have come to kill Iraqi's", can you really have issue with the "fierce" opposition he's going to get - whether you like Iraqi's or not?

Let us perhaps agree that "peace" is the ultimate end. It's what heaven is, it's what your entire life has led to. No war, no arguments, no descension in heaven. You could have that right now - but the man in charge, the big cheese says he isn't going to give you that, but the opposite.

"I'll pay you a million one day.. but not today".

"Btw, donate to thy neighbour".

It's bollocks.

Not sure I follow you right now, but if we need to get into hypocricy or contradiction we need only look at pretty much any passage in the bible: "why call me good, only the father is good", "I and the father are one" etc etc and so on. This is what happens when you have texts written by multiple people over generations.

No. I have already argued that 'plan' is plan. Good and bad become meaningless no? Why, we overlook the death of every single man, woman, animal and plant on the planet because it was all part of the master scheme - why would this be any different? We accept the worldly slaughter on the basis that it has brought us jesus. We accept our own sins, our own failings in the light of jesus - in the NT fact that jesus' entire purpose is to forgive us for those failings, for those sins. And yet, for some bizarre reason, the minute there's a little bit of a 'human shudder' in the morals and decisions applied by god, you have to argue it - much like I'm sure you would have argued back in the day when every single being on the planet was sucking salt water.

Actually, what that statement supports is that when jesus says he came not to bring peace but a sword, that he was telling the truth. Way to go.

Woe to the bible. All plans laid out for man to follow. The world will end, "stars" will fall on the planet and poison the water, a flying dragon with a hooker for company will wage war with now non-existant babylonians and well.. that will be that. In it's aftermath, a new jerusalem, (of all places - shithole that it is), will come out of the sky and settle on a new earth in a new universe and we'll all be happy in a city of gold, except for dogs and fortune tellers that have to live outside - a big "haha" on them.

Maybe you haven't read the bible lately, but the "plan" is right there.

Why do they point at Hebrews?

Why do they "ignore" those passages? Does the bible say that those passages are more ignorable?

Apologies, but clearly your 'version' of the bible has. If it didn't, you'd be agnostic at the very least.

Fair enough, but if you don't accept that Allah almighty is your one true god, then you're going to burn for the rest of eternity.

Oh how sweet is that ignorant preaching you fools feel is all essential?

You argue my case. Thank you.

Eh? That sin becoming "greater and greater" was only as "god intended".

You've proved my case. Nothing more.

This was planned since the beginning right? (you can't deny that given your last statement)

I don't, but ok - the only perspective that counts is gods... Man fights other man and needs jesus to save him. Thus, bringing the sword instead of peace is an absolute - because that sword is needed for there to be a jesus to ever bring peace.

It wasn't "already there". It was there since god created it so - god being jesus "supposedly". You don't understand the bible in "overall context". Your god brought that descension in order for man to need saving by jesus, which means mankind can ever be saved from something they had no choice in because god needed them to be as they are in order to save them.

Inaccurate. jesus didn't come to remedy anything, but to accept that sin is there - all around. Even you will agree that regardless to how religious and jesus a lover you are, you cannot avoid sin. It is - therefore - unavoidable. You will sin regardless to jesus existence or non-existence. All jesus was there for was to say he forgives you for sinning - in which case that sin has to exist for him to even come here in the first place.

My earlier question one more time: (please be honest):

Would you rather there be no sin, but no jesus.. Or sin, and jesus?

But you do owe it to god... You still sin all the while being forgiven for it by that god - that funnily enough created you in such fashion where you would find it utterly impossible not to sin. If all sin were regarded as equal then you're undoubtedly no better than the local rapist - the only difference being that you're forgiven for being a shithead, whereas the local rapist isn't... until he decides jesus is boss and then he is. You're scum Jenyar, and not because you ever sat down and decided you wanted to be scum, but because if you weren't scum there would be no god to save you from it - and as a result, you would not be religious, you would not be christian - and undoubtedly you would be even less moral than you are now.

No it isn't. That is the very purpose of heaven.

No, not really. However, if god had a plan to begin with, everything in the middle of that is completely inconsequential because it's all part of that plan.

In saying this, the bible only ever needed two pages:

'And god said; "I have a plan"'

"The end".

I often see gamblers doing that. Problem is, gamblers never win.

 

It has to do with the subject matter. The Bible is the history of the faith, so when dicussing the faith... there you go. If we were talking about any other topic, other sources would be quoted to support the arguments being used.

It's a bit like thanking democracy for providing you with the opportunity to vote, or thanking your parents for paying your school fees and paying the bills. The main reason for being thankful is that it wasn't because of my decisions. I wasn't thanking Christianity for "leading them to me", but for providing the infrastructure, so to speak. As for making decisions based on the Bible, that would be like making decisions based on the constitution. Most people do fine not stealing or murdering without citing the constitution as the reason, but that's because they've been brought up in a society that has made its guiding principles their own already.

Excellent point. If you went to church you might have heard the same things said somewhere in a sermon (although I don't think people who swear at the damned coffee table are high on the list of concerns right now). They'd also likely cite precedent (I like the way The Message puts it):

Matt. 5:33-37 "And don't say anything you don't mean. This counsel is embedded deep in our traditions. You only make things worse when you lay down a smoke screen of pious talk, saying, 'I'll pray for you,' and never doing it, or saying, 'God be with you,' and not meaning it. You don't make your words true by embellishing them with religious lace. In making your speech sound more religious, it becomes less true. Just say 'yes' and 'no.' When you manipulate words to get your own way, you go wrong."​

 

If I got it wrong it would be due to your explanatory abilities. I've never argued that hate doesn't mean hate - in English. Nor that "hate" isn't a 100% acceptable and accurate translation of the Greek word in question. My argument with you is whether the traditional English usage of that word is applicable under the circumstances, since we're not dealing with an English context here, and that's why the more explanatory/idiomatic translations are invaluable. If I translated an idiom from my native language literally into English, then even if the words I used were completely accurate, the meaning could be lost. Do you understand the concept better now?

It's not a similar case at all, but that's another debate entirely.

I'm not quite sure what you expect me to do. If you want to make an argument for Jesus' inconsistency based on Luke 14, I'm perfectly prepared to follow your argument to its logical conclusion with you, but you seem to want me to accept the conclusion of your argument without ever making one. Unless your argument goes something like "Jesus used the word 'hate', therefore his intentions were evil" or "Jesus caused division, and all division is evil", which would be a little fallacious.

Sure I can entertain the possibility that Jesus was confused about his purpose or that hatred was a priority on his agenda, but like you said, I could also suppose there was an invisible pink unicorn... Under the circumstances, I simply don't see the point of supposing it.

 

There is an "economy" of God, many groups who haven't received Him "as their personal Saviour", will be there.

 

Holy f'ing crap dude! I didn't mean to spawn the mother of all posts. I'm just as flamingly atheistic as you are. I just like science fiction. And I agree with all of your posts.

 

No.

Compassion with the object of self and an awareness of power can lead to this form of respect.

Fools do classify as fools see fit. Anyone who speaks a truth has swung the sword of truth.

My point was a specific action need not be confined to only being one or the other. It could be neither kind nor cruel. It could be a merging of kind and cruel in which what is seen as one turns into the other over time.

I'm not sure how you got that out of my original statement. It is impossible to act on a belief without awareness of the belief. It is possible to act on a belief without conscious awareness of the belief.

A question without substance need not be dodged nor answered. Most people try to understand their own beliefs. That water said she was not buddha is evidence that she has.

There was more to the advice than understanding one's beliefs and living those beliefs.

When I asked a question to understand what was understood of water's beliefs another answered the question first. I again ask water a question and an answer was given but the other rephrases the question as if the answer was not a valid answer. The environment was clearly not conducive to either her learning or mine.

You ask if I understand what water wants, the answer is no.

 

Now I think I see what you were getting at, the belief in the roles of victim, persecutor or rescuer, student or teacher. It is a constant problem with notions of sin or karma, the difficulty of accounting for taste, kind or cruel, right or wrong.

I had assumed that "A person cannot change another person." was proposed a belief.

For want of what more was in mind I am not so sure of any of that, even of what a belief is.

If I fail to see my own actions, how then how do I know, how to understand what I believe?

Do you have a method to propose?

Suppose then that water simply does not want to learn, would that matter, in terms of respect?

-- Ron.

 

If one believes an action must be cruel or kind, right or wrong then that one will have difficulty.

Ok, but how does connect with "seemed to suggest that it is possible to act upon a belief but with no awareness of the belief"?

Before one tries to catch wind in a bag, one must first understand the nature of what is being caught.

I had thought it was already proposed. If one finds themselves in a position which is successfully attacked examine the position being attacked.

Wanting to learn and not wanting to learn. I see no difference when one considers respect of another's right to choose.

 

Life was already reputed to be difficult.

If the suggestion is to forget or forgive a supposed cruelty, I fear for your inclusion on water's list of those who made her life Hell.

I would otherwise agree, if you mean to suggest that people heed what they want to hear, and see what they want to see anyway, to suit themselves.

If you are saying that there has to be some awareness in order to understand then I concede. Insert "conscious" or "insuffiucient" before "awareness" if you will.

But is it not because of the examination that the proverbial sword of truth would cut?
Is there another way for such an attack to succeed, before examination?

One is presumably required to learn what another's choice is.

--- Ron.

 

"All this involved many thousands of hours of research and discussion regarding the meaning of the texts and the precise way of putting them into English. It may well be that no other translation has been made by a more thorough process of review and revision from committee to committee than this one."

It goes on to say that they haven't just done a word-for-word translation, but one that accurately conveys the meaning etc etc yada yada and then go on to say that the bible is the infallible word of god *snore*

In 30 seconds, Jenyar farts that off the face of the planet with some personal little opinion that translators don't know what they're doing. These scholars, working for thousands and thousands of hours, have decided that 'hate' is the accurate word to use, not only from a translation point of view, but from a meaning point of view as well.

Of course it is, contradiction is contradiction.

Nonsense. Indeed I keep asking you questions that rarely, if ever, get an answer. What you conclude is of no relevance. You'll still go to sleep a religious boy, and I'll still go to sleep an atheist.

What I am waiting for is more of a debate than {pp} "translators fucked it up" - which is pretty much all you've managed to say.

My argument is that since day 1 it has been the plan for man to fail - to sin, to be divided, (by god).

We have jesus' "sword, not peace" speech - an indicator that his purpose was to cause descension, (yes Jenyar, purpose).

Going back in time a little we even see god going out of his way to ensure descension and division. Man is getting along just fine - indeed accomplishing so much together that god ends up getting concerned over how well humanity is getting along. So what does he do? He goes down, "scatters" them all over the earth and "confuses" their language so they cannot understand each other and thus become divided.

The clear purpose of these two gods compliments each other - to divide mankind, to cause descension, to bring a 'sword', (whether verbal of physically), against each other.

What would happen if mankind did start getting along, living in peace? Undoubtedly jesus would return and tell the world tax collecters suck just before suiciding himself and his father would then once more confuse everyone and scatter us to whatever places are left to be scattered to.

Indirectly? No. Intentionally? yes "I have come to bring.." not "Because of me being here there will be.." much like "god came down and confused them..." not "man was getting along perfectly until for no good reason they decided to confuse themselves and scatter themselves across the planet".

A "necessary" division because jesus ensured that it would happen, as did his father before him.

What bothers me is even though you yourself point out how many times I have asked, at this stage you still haven't answered it. As for who jesus did or did not come to save, it's irrelevant to what I've been saying.

A rather curious statement. Given that a few billion don't believe in jesus, it's clear he is "optional" {edit} Not to mention that even you'd agree, (from what I know of our previous conversations), that god has given us a choice as to whether to believe in him etc etc. On the other side even you would state that no human is sinless - no matter how much of a jesusite you are, implying that sin isn't "optional" - but an absolute inevitable part of being human.

Well, a different debate altogether, but I personally fail to see the real benefit of a god whacking himself temporarily with regards to us smoking, bonking and being as human as humans possibly can be - much like I never really saw the worth in slaughtering a cow every other day.

'And god boomed down; "You there! You have done the ultimate bad, silly human that you are, and slept with a woman on her period. Kill a cow and it will all be better.. ah the glorious smell of burning cow flesh mmmm."' Or even worse

'"And god boomed down; "You there! You have looked at a woman with lust in your eye. I will now kill myself briefly to make it better."'

It's so daft I can't help but laugh. Admittedly though that 3 second; "Ouch, argg, I'm only god, don't hurt me so much" did end up saving a damn lot of cows.

Sorry, didn't realise you'd think I was talking about Jupiter.

Yes they did, indeed since the time of god coming down and causing that division by confusing people and scattering them all over the earth - because they were getting along. jesus just came and reiterated what his plan has been since day zero. But if we are to say that heaven will be a place of total peace, why bother with earth at all?

I see the question was not taken seriously.

There is. Perhaps you just need a translator, (although certainly not any that helped translate bibles).

Yeah, throw that word in there like it has any value. The bible and actions within the bible support what I've said. The best you can conjure up is to say translators are all wrong.

Yes, because that is what the plan has ensured. There was a time when mankind got along - worked together and achieved so much that even god had to sit down and say; "nothing will be impossible for them". By now we could have achieved so much more, nothing would be impossible for us. The only reason we are as we are now is because god specifically and intentionally caused that division between us - forced division upon mankind.

Well no, it doesn't mean having to do anything - you're just speaking from a view of experience to the way things currently are. But that division wasn't always there, need not be there, and would not be there if it wasn't for god forcing that division upon mankind because their co-operation with each other was accomplishing too much.

Once again I don't really understand what you're trying to get at, (most likely due to that confusion forced upon mankind), and I always end up laughing because you constantly change "discussion" or "debate" to "complaint" whenever talking with someone that disagrees with you or has a differing view.

My debate that god specifically set out to cause division between humans - (just to then go on and suicide himself to forgive people for that division that he caused) - is attested to by biblical text. From Babel to jesus speech and to other examples that I shall point out if and when this discussion continues, one step at a time.

Your rebuttal is that I am having problems reading, but it just wont wash Jenyar.

I'm sorry, there I was being told the bible was the absolute, infallible word of god. It depends person to person I guess, but undoubtedly Woody and Adstar would be the very first two to tell you you're wrong. Symbolism? Pfft.

Still, I can see that this would be the next argument once you figure out that "translators are wrong", isn't going to get you anywhere. "It's not real man, it's just a story! Ignore that part, that part, oh and that part. Just believe the parts I tell you to".

But sure Jenyar, I do agree with you. It's all symbolic. There was no Noah or global flood, there was no Adam and Eve or talking snake, there was no Jesus or resurrection. It's just a story.

Convenient tactic to avoid answering the questions.

You're not one for symbolism, are you?

Well, I'd somewhat agree, other than to state that 'sin' is only sin when the big man wants it to be sin. Murder, (a sin), becomes perfectly fine and indeed encouraged at other moments and no longer gets classified as sin. However, this isn't really part of the debate - which is to say that god/jesus specifically planned and caused man to be divided. "A man to go against his father.." yada yada.


---------

Lol. "Flamingly atheistic". Gotta love it

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!