tiassa, Talk about distractions and diversions and side-stepping the issues! Give it up already! If you can't do that, then I'll at least make the statements easier for you to stay focused on. I say... "Coal is black." What's your response? [This message has been edited by truestory (edited December 16, 1999).]
Vinnie, According to a book I have called, "Bible Life & Times", Matthew and Luke were written 7 BC - AD 29; Mark and John were written AD 25-29; Acts of the Apostles, AD 30-62; New Testament Letters, AD 50-100; Revelations, AD 95. ------------------ www.indigenousrocks.com
Lori, I didn't maen to come off that way! When I read or hear people say things like that my first reaction is anger, but I do understand that this is not what you and others are refering to. I just need to vent a little otherwise I brew over it and my end of the descusion is bullsh*t. Read the last 2 sentences of it again. I thought I had made it clear enough, but apparantly I didn't. I am sorry for any misunderstanding. I do admit that my moral convictions do coincide a lot with the basic moral teachings of the bible, but there are a lot of things about the bible and the fondations of the bible that just don't sit well with me. For example a snipit from a passage, the name of the passage I do not rember. "Leave vengance to me. For I am a imperfect Go and a vengfull God". Thats just one example, there are many more. I don't belive I will convert any time soon. As much as I would like the picture, I am a stuborn ass, and when I belive that I am right I will stand fast untill persueded other wise. As all ways I will continue to think and discus the topic of religon. I belive that our beleifs change with time and this only comes about through deep thought and discusion. This doesn't mean I will convert, there are many directions one can chose to go. ------------------ My life could have been black and white, but I had to color it. [This message has been edited by 666 (edited December 16, 1999).]
Truestory-- I say "black" is a fiction. Insofar as I need to perceive coal with my eyes, sure, it's black. But if our sun had been a slightly different wavelength, that "black" would look bluer or redder. Whereas it may or may not be good enough for you for coal to be black and chunky and flammable ... did you know you can see stars shine when you burn coal? It's all the same thing, you know. Or is it that such considerations don't matter? I see mass and energy, I see fire and harmony, I see the fuel of important moments of human history. Sure, coal is black, but why stop there? Tiassa ------------------ "Religion isn't dead either. The AntiChrist will have access to computers, television, radio, and compact disc. If he walks among us already, the chances are that he has a walkman. I just hope it's not Christ himself, disillusioned after two thousand years in a cosmic sitting room full of magazines and cheeseplants, turned malignant and rotting in despair at the way his message has been perverted." (Robyn Hitchcock, 11/1987)
Thanks, tiassa, I say... "Coal is black." And you respond: Interesting... this brings to mind a few other questions: 1) Why go off on tangents about black as "fiction," about changes in perception "IF" things were different, about whether "black" and "chunky" and "flammable" were "good enough" (???) for me, about seeing "stars shining" in "burning" coal, about whether or not such "considerations" matter (???), about "mass" and "energy" and "fire" and "harmony" and "fuel" and "important moments in human history" from the simple statement that "coal is black"? You could just as easily have kept your response concise and to the point. 2) Why did you choose to respond the way you did? 3) On the other hand, why didn't you go on about "coal" and "black" some more? 4) Surely, there is much more to be said about "coal" and "black", isn't there? 5) For example, why didn't you include the association of coal's carbon make-up to every organic compound and most inorganic compounds in the universe in your response? In that respect, you could have gone on with your response for the rest of your life. 6) Why did you choose to stop when you did? There are many more questions which I could ask you regarding this, tiassa... 7) Why, do you think, I am choosing to stop now? Just so you know. I am serious. I would like to hear your responses to all seven questions, if you don't mind. [This message has been edited by truestory (edited December 17, 1999).]
666, You know that I was just teasing about the picture right? It was kind of a trick in that I would only know that you're saved when you no longer wanted me to send the picture. Sorry, I'm just trying to be funny. You would think I would learn, but.... Anyway, the reason that I'm so over zealous in a way regarding you is just because I feel like you have been given a real opportunity to find God. I did that while trying to reconcile my pain, and I certainly know that you have more than your fair share. Some things that you have written have really touched my heart, and I would love more than anything to be able to do something to take all your pain away. But alas I am only human, and can not. I do know that the only one who can make it go away is Jesus. So hopefully that explains where I'm coming from. You sound like such a nice guy, and I'm so impressed with your attitude and disposition, especially when I consider what you've been through, and like I said before, I want ALL of your days to be good ones. ------------------ "ET phone home!" "Uh, hello Satan?" "Hey, your plan worked great! They all think I'm cute!"
Truestory: That's fair. I even have answers, though some will rest on the merit of the other answers: 1) The conditions described by the color black exist in the universe. "Black" is a human designation which relates to the portion of the spectrum we see. In this regard, I try to remember that such words are ficticious ... they depend entirely on another person being able to comprehend what the word means in relation to their station in the universe. It's actually an argument I use more surrounding money. What is a dollar worth? Well, two of 'em gets you a loaf of bread if everyone agrees that's the exchange. What is black? Well, it's all colors to painters, or no color to scientists ... and merely an observational designation. As long as we all agree what black is, yes, coal is black. As a side note, let me apologize for the "good enough for you" line ... I now understand why you limited your assessment of "coal" to black. That's all it meant. You ask why I continue and why I don't, I turn the same notion to you. But we'll get to that. 2) I choose to respond the way I do because the greater part of my human experience has taught me that no question rests as simply as it sounds. I've watched twenty years of people pointing their fingers from the soapbox or pulpit, accusing, retracting, saying ... "you just don't understand" or, "you just don't want to understand." And the whole time, the parties are saying nothing to actually disagree, but are speaking in different terms with different considerations defining their central perspective. 3, 4, 5, 6) Well, maybe that was the point. Human communication is supposed to take place on many levels ... elsewise, why would we be taught, as children, to consider "other peoples' feelings." After all, as we grow, we learn that many of our best intentions will upset people because they are looking, as in answer number 2, at a different facet of the issue. It's only in adulthood--specifically, in the part of the "working world" that I'm currently in--that I've started to encounter, en masse, a bizarre new literalism. Whereas a very important point could be made with general statements of cultural or historic reference, the culture seems to have abandoned its ability to comprehend the whole of a thing, choosing instead to tear each other apart based on hurried conclusions taken from an out-of-context snippet. It's called "sound-bite" or "blurb" culture. Strangely, since the country seems to vote for its national offices by that philosophy, I always thought people were aware of it. Basically, though, it's that one does not necessarily need to go on forever in order to represent the infinite diversity of perspectives. I remember when preferred less confusing communication. Y'know, a trivial perspective of mine is that when I see coal or natural gas or oil, I see Barney. A purple dinosaur millions of years dead, and, thankfully, no longer singing and dancing to annoy us all senseless. But that's trivial, so I chose not to include it. 7) I refuse to speculate on why you choose to stop. If there's one thing I've learned from our exchanges, its that it doesn't matter what I think. You've got your reasons and your truths, any anything else I could say would merely be petty, extreme assumptions. There's more to your question one, but I feel that considerations about mass and energy are as inherent to me as Christ-as-Savior seems to be to you. Human history? How far would we have gotten in the industrial revolution without coal? How about heat? In that case, though, we might ask why fire deserves consideration regarding human history. But if you know the math, and want to take the time, you would find that burning a piece of coal, essentially, is no different than a star burning hydrogen. For the record, I'm not enough of a mathematician or physicist to undertake those equations regularly. I look at a human being, I see a piece of all humanity. I look at coal and it must necessarily be more than this black lump in front of me. Tiassa ------------------ "Religion isn't dead either. The AntiChrist will have access to computers, television, radio, and compact disc. If he walks among us already, the chances are that he has a walkman. I just hope it's not Christ himself, disillusioned after two thousand years in a cosmic sitting room full of magazines and cheeseplants, turned malignant and rotting in despair at the way his message has been perverted." (Robyn Hitchcock, 11/1987)
Lori, Yeah I know you were kiding about the pic. , but sometimes a little fantasy is fun. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I want to address the rest of your post, but not sure exactly ware to begin. So here it goes. Fortunetly I decided to get help a long time ago and have spent a lot of time sorting quite a bit out. At first I didn't want to feel any thing. As time progresed I came to realize that what I went through and the pain I feel made me who I am today. Turning what happened into a pasitive force in my life could not have happened with out the help I recived from those around me. As much as I appreciate your empathy, I am at a point in my life ware I don't want to go back and change what happened. It is as much a part of me as the fingers I use to type this post. The pain is part of it and me. This doesn't mean I would ever want to go through it again, but I would never change my past. As much as I would like to say I am not angry or bitter, I am. All though it is not a controling factor in my life. I don't total denounce God, I just take the stand of I don't know if there is or not. Most of the time I need some place to put the anger and bitterness. So I let it rest with a being that I do not know is there or not. When I do pass on I will know and if there is. I just hope he can accept and understand that I needed him to hold the anger and bitterness for a while. I had to excaept the fact I have strength, but even I have limits to what I can handle. I wrote this partially so you can understand me a little more and partially for anyone eles who has gone through this and maybe it will help who knows. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ------------------ My life could have been black and white, but I had to color it. [This message has been edited by 666 (edited December 18, 1999).]
"""""""""""According to Genesis 20-25, god made the fish and sea creatures and the birds of the air at the same time, before creating land based creatures. Well I'm sorry, but that is not the scientific view, we all know that birds evolved after the dinosaurs.""""""""" """""""""And here's another mistake, in Genesis 11-13 it says that god created vegetation, plants with seeds and trees producing seed bearing fruit. This was on the third day before he created life in the sea. But we know that all organic life began in the sea and that seed bearing plants and fruit trees need insects to help them propagate."""""'''''' Check this out and let me know what you think. Its on "days" 5 and 6 and clears up the contradiction in the firts paragraph above. http://www.reasons.org/resources/books/genesisquestion/gq6.html Put that together with this (down below) and your contradictions diappear for the second paragraph as well. The creation of vegetation. "Let the land produce vegitation: sead-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds" (Genesis 1:11). The newly formed land now brings dry vegetation. The words "seed," "trees," and "fruit" have much more specific meaning in english than in Hebrew, and this difference has led to some misunderstanding and unwarranted criticism of the text. The Hebrew nouns used here, zera, es, and peri, mean, respectively, "semen" or "the embryos of any plant species," "any large plant containing woody fiber," and "the food and/or the embryos produced by any living thing." Zera and peri could refer to any plant species that has ever existed. The es, certauinly includes all large plants containing cellulose and could possibly be referring to all larger-than-microscopic plants whose fibers provide a measure of stiffness. Thus, these terms do include the relatively primitive plant species sccientists have identified as the first land vegetation." That was taken from The Genesis Question by Dr. Hugh Ross on page 39. Also the hebrew text does not tell us when insects were created. Doesn't say before or after. No contradiction can be found there. """""""And here's yet another mistake, in Genesis 16-19 the bible says that god made the sun, the moon and the stars, this was on the fourth day. Kinda makes you wonder how all that vegetation grew without sunshine, never mind the insects!""""""""" The word used for created in that verse has a lexicon that means 'cause to appear.' The second verse in genesis makes it clear genesis is giving the creation account from the perspective of the earth's surface. A lot of people miss this crucial shift. On the earth the sun appeared. It does not say that it did not exist, just that it was not viewable from the earth. Our atmosphere did go from translucent to transparent a long time ago. This means at one time we could not clearly see the outline of the sun and at one time we could. Once agian the Bible is clearly not at odds with the findings of modern day science. Hope this helps. Vinnie Praise Jesus!!!
tiassa, Thanks for your reply. I would like to share some excerpts from the Book of Ecclesiastes. This historical book is concerned with the purpose and value of human life, with life considered to be an enigma beyond human ablitiy to solve. It speaks about the vanity of all things and the merits associated with man enjoying certain legitimate pleasures. However, this indulgence is also considered to be vanity unless man returns due thanks to the Creator who has given him all. The clear answer to the problem was to come with the light of Christ's teaching concerning future life. "The quiet words of the wise are better heeded than the shout of a ruler of fools-! ... More weighty than wisdom or wealth is a little folly! The wise man's understanding turns him to his right; the fool's understanding turns him to his left. When the fool walks through the street, in his lack of understanding he calls everything foolish. ... Words from the wise man's mouth win favor, but the fool's lips consume him. The beginnning of his words is folly, and the end of his talk is utter madness; yet the fool multiplies words. ... Man knows not what is to come, for who can tell him what is to come after him? When will the fool be weary of his labor, he who knows not the way to the city?" May the peace of the Lord, Jesus Christ, be with you always, tiassa. [This message has been edited by truestory (edited December 18, 1999).]
Truestory-- Given that you and I do not receive the same frequency regarding faith, I wonder why you pick such pointed passages from a book whose credibility rests wholly with the reader's predisposition. After all, I'm sure we both read the phrase differently. Rather, we read the same words, and base our assessments on different criteria. On the one hand, "The quiet words of the wise ...," is an excellent idea. To the other, though, is the assumption that the term "wise" is reserved for those who subscribe to a specific philosophy. In this case, that philosophy is the one founded by Christ's followers. So I could assume the statement is true and proper, but I might be making assumptions about my perception of your openmindedness, and that would be extreme. You also included a quote that contained a gem: "When will the fool be weary of his labor ...." I would respond here by citing Camus: with nothing to compel us otherwise, we must assume Sisyphus to be happy. But, again, I'm probably reading something you hadn't intended. In fact, I can wager quite safely on that. So, if you would be so kind, offer your best translation of the faith terms of your citations ... or is this just a declaration which actually is supposed to require no response? In that case, I'm sorry to waste your time. Tiassa ------------------ "Religion isn't dead either. The AntiChrist will have access to computers, television, radio, and compact disc. If he walks among us already, the chances are that he has a walkman. I just hope it's not Christ himself, disillusioned after two thousand years in a cosmic sitting room full of magazines and cheeseplants, turned malignant and rotting in despair at the way his message has been perverted." (Robyn Hitchcock, 11/1987)
Tiassa, I don't get your sig??? Perverted message? I know that the message has been perverted by many. Do you know that? If so, then why are you usually arguing the perversion? And if it is perverted, then what does that say about the integrity of the original message itself? Confusion...please explain. I just noticed that you can disable smilies in a post. Why would anyone want to do that? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ------------------ "ET phone home!" "Uh, hello Satan?" "Hey, your plan worked great! They all think I'm cute!"
Lori-- Does the turning off of smiles have to do with Unix/Linux? Otherwise I have no clue. The signature is part of a rant Hitchcock wrote for the interior sleeve of his "Globe of Frogs" album. In 1989, when I first read it, it presented interesting possibilities. Today, it almost seems a truism, but that's a matter of opinion. The perversion he refers to encapsules nearly two-thousand years of acts that do not hold accord with the message allegedly motivating said acts. The Bible is incomplete ... several of the Gospels excluded made allusions toward Jesus as a married man. In Catholic schools they teach that there were as many as sixty-four "Gospels" being considered when the church heads got together and pared it down. Strangely, in that regard, the four chosen Gospels mirror the Old Testament prophecies more closely than the others. He could refer to the split between James and Saul-turned-Paul. He could be referring to inquisitions, crusades, encomienda, slavery, Manifest Destiny, or any of the horrible atrocities visited on fellow humans by those alleging to be of Jesus' faith. The twentieth century has been bad for Christianity. At the turn of the century, the various sects engaged in character assassination, spawning the phrase "Puritan pornography" in reference to lurid pamphlets by the Anti-Catholic league. Mr. Hitchcock, also, is a British artist. The state of the empire, locally speaking, was pretty bad off during his time, and much of the justifications for what was wrong involved God. Belfast was only a two-hour flight away. Sex scandals, infighting ... all of it said to be in the name of Jesus. But that's speculation. I'll get the entire text for you, if you like, for context sake. And then I'd be happy to explore the idea with anyone. Why not? I've carried that one, virtually unchallenged, for ten years. If it flies with the audience, hey, it's doing alright. But if you still have deeper issues ... it would be my pleasure to address them. But it was a quaintly-timed response to a growing "God-is-dead" postmodernism taking hold among jaded youth. That much I can say now. As to the integrity of the original message ... I cannot comment on Hitchcock's state of mind regarding the things he did not say--as I noted, the best definitions I can give you off the top of my head are speculation. For myself, the quote said nothing of the integrity of the original message, except perhaps that said integrity is lost. Even I did not get a sense of falseness surrounding the early faith. Instead, it seemed to indicate that something existed there worth saving (which idea had not yet bothered to occur to me, given the ineptness of the preachers and congregations I knew). That something, though, has never been the set of social prohibitions prescribed by alleged Biblical justification. In fact, I'm quite sure that if we wiped out all the church buildings and forced Christians to start over, with small congregations and much to consider, they would have a pretty good shot at avoiding certain traps the founding church could not avoid. But that argument leads into my "people generally never learn" attitude, which I suppose is extreme, but entirely another issue. thanx, Tiassa ------------------ "Religion isn't dead either. The AntiChrist will have access to computers, television, radio, and compact disc. If he walks among us already, the chances are that he has a walkman. I just hope it's not Christ himself, disillusioned after two thousand years in a cosmic sitting room full of magazines and cheeseplants, turned malignant and rotting in despair at the way his message has been perverted." (Robyn Hitchcock, 11/1987)
Thanks, that helps alot. I guess that's what I thought it meant in a general sense. It's strange because the notion of "God is dead" is shown to me through the same acts of perversion, but only in the sense that He is dead within us, or to us, or in our hearts. The very fact that we recognize a perversion at all means to me that God is alive. You know that it angers me to know that the Bible in it's original message has been sliced and diced or twisted to the whim of someone's ego. But I also know that for each and every sin committed within the church, there is a message in the Bible (as sliced and diced as it is) that identifies it as such. God can't be dead if there isn't a God. The sheer fact that an absolute right and wrong exists shows me that there is a God, whatever that right and wrong may be. So, I see the same things that this guy is talking about and I see God, instead of seeing that "God is dead". And not only the things within the church of course, but everywhere, lots of bad sad things. Mixed with some good. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Some. Sometimes the difference between good and bad is obvious, and sometimes it's not so obvious, but I believe that if you look very close and be very honest, you can see that line most of the time. Every time I do, I end up agreeing with the message in the Bible. Ever see that movie "Very Bad Things"? Man, you can see the line ALL OVER that movie. Watching it was quite a spiritual/mental exercise. ------------------ "ET phone home!" "Uh, hello Satan?" "Hey, your plan worked great! They all think I'm cute!"
tiassa, Peace be with you. As you know, I have a personal relationship with God. When starting to respond to your post which addressed the seven questions, I received a message from God... God asked that I share something with you... God lead me to the Bible and to those passages. It is something that happens sometimes. I do not go searching in the Bible... I simply open it, go to the page that is facing me, and God directs me to the specific passages to be shared with the intented recipient. Understanding your reluctance to be open to the source, I originally considered interpreting the message and posting it in my own words rather than quoting the passages directly. However, I then realized that doing so would have been an injustice, since it is a personal message from God, to you. In this case, I am simply the messenger. May the peace of the Lord, Jesus Christ, be with you always, tiassa.
Truestory-- Slick. Even Falwell would be applauding that performance. But I like to think I know when not to respond .... But I'm wondering, since my first inclination toward that heavenly-inspired post was to respond with Crowley's assessment of archaic, Old Testament wisdom ... does that mean that God was hiding my Book of Lies from me? Or does it mean that I just need to write it down when a friend borrows one of my books? Given no other details of your holy revelation, though, I'm inclined to place it beside the notion of "Eureka!" But thank you for sharing your revelation with me. Though I must admit that if God were truly the omiscient force tradition claims, It might have known that It has a better chance interacting directly with me. Though it's mostly an old standard joke of mine, it is true that if Jesus wanted to sit down over a drink and explain the difference between what He intended and what His people are doing in the modern day, I would even buy the rounds. Tiassa ------------------ "Religion isn't dead either. The AntiChrist will have access to computers, television, radio, and compact disc. If he walks among us already, the chances are that he has a walkman. I just hope it's not Christ himself, disillusioned after two thousand years in a cosmic sitting room full of magazines and cheeseplants, turned malignant and rotting in despair at the way his message has been perverted." (Robyn Hitchcock, 11/1987)
tiassa, Believe me. There was no trickery involved. What I said happened, happened. God does interact with you directly. Perhaps you don't recognize it. If what you truly want is a one-on-one relationship with God, then all you have to do is ask with a purity and sincerity of heart. More good news! Jesus is also coming in the flesh again. Hopefully, in your lifetime! In the meantime, you can read His words in the Bible. His intentions are really simple and clear. We might deny them because we are human, but, they are what they are... timeless.
Truestory: So tell us about your visitation with God, then. What I'm getting after here is that you say something which requires faith to accept--that God spoke to you directly--and leave it simply at that. Given various circumstances, religious visions can be explained as psychiatric phenomena as commonplace as the mysteries of ectoplasmic and Kirlean photography. However, I cannot assert those conditions, because of your short detail. Considering that, a declaration of faith with nothing tangible to relate suddenly reeks of snake oil. Should I say that ghosts stole my keys when I was prowling the site of a ruined "haunted house"? But then someone might point out the obvious: running full-speed up a steep hill in shoulder-high foliage with my keys stuck recklessly in my jacket pocket, without closing or buttoning said pocket. I might believe in unexplained phenomena, but I know I dropped my keys while running. But what happens if I describe the episode as we saw it? That we descended the hill with the moon at our backs, felt an unnatural wind just explode through the ravine, saw two white, translucent figures, and then things got weird. The moon shifted its position in the sky 180 degrees, which compelled us to not trifle with the powers we assumed resident in the land we tread. Again ... I may have seen, in my time, things that compel me to not disbelieve spiritual discorporation; but that does not mean that a ghost picked my pocket that night. Or, to be more relevant, when I found my Thoth tarot Star card in a room of the house which the deck of cards had never been, and with no compulsion for the other residents of the house to remove this card from the deck and hide it ... was that the power of God? When a book of false sorcery spontaneously combusted in front of three of us, was that necessarily an act of God? Or was it the amount of lighter fluid that the bag the book had been in reeked of and the proximity of an ashtray holding three lit cigarettes? When I sit amid my occult library, now rarely used, and still feel the power of revelation, the need to open this volume or that, and suddenly I gain a new insight into a philosophy that has previously confounded me, is that a message from God? Or is it several years of latent consideration of certain aspects of this faith which have since resolved themselves and simply await a psychological key to offer their fruit? As to the "More good news" report ... you know, in 96 CE, or thereabout, Clement of Rome felt compelled to advise the church at Corinth to not doubt the resurrection of Christ. It seems many people in that church had begun to doubt the resurrection merely because a lifetime had passed, and still no Second Coming. Thus I would assert your "More good news" is not so much news at all, but a story that has played its doubting aspects out many times over the intervening millennia. And, yes, the Bible certainly is timeless. It's place in culture has been secured by centuries of the sword. Beyond that, the spiritual qualities that make me consider it timeless are present elsewhere in the world. Tiassa ------------------ "Religion isn't dead either. The AntiChrist will have access to computers, television, radio, and compact disc. If he walks among us already, the chances are that he has a walkman. I just hope it's not Christ himself, disillusioned after two thousand years in a cosmic sitting room full of magazines and cheeseplants, turned malignant and rotting in despair at the way his message has been perverted." (Robyn Hitchcock, 11/1987)
