Do you think reading the bible is important?

[the iconoclast]

Because my life and experience are validity enough for me.

Hey hey my new friend

So as a non Christian, you do not need to consider salvation and atonement - because these concepts are Christian. You consider this a valid reason because your life and experience are validity enough for you.

What is it about your life and what are some experiences that are valid enough for you to reject the atonement of our Lord Jesus Christ, and have no need to consider such a thing?

Well there are brain scans to observe what a person experiences within nature, coupled with the experience of being within nature.

Well my dear, what about these brain scans - that observe what a person experiences within nature. How do they support for your statement?

What about these brain scans that observe what a person experiences within nature made you come to your conclusion?

Could you supply a link so i can inspect what it is you are talking about and to understand you better?

Please excuse me my friend. What are you talking about

, coupled with the experience of being within nature.

Please indulge me friend.

What experience of being within nature gives support for your statement? What experience of being within nature helped you come to your conclusion?

I believe its to do with an altered brain wave state, where your brain switches (or can switch) from a Beta state to an Alpha one.

How did you reach this conclusion? Do you have link to provide me so i can inspect? What has this got to do with Jesus, nature and the light of God? What has this got to do with accepting Jesus Christ as your saviour?

An Alpha state is more relaxed, intuitive, aware, and less cognitive in regards to crunching out thoughts and perhaps anxiety and fear surrounding those, or just mental activity. Nature is the trigger for that process, or can be. The rigid elements of a state of doing in a Beta brain wave state is switched to a more relaxed and intuitive state of being from an Alpha brain wave state.

What has this got to do with Jesus, nature and the light of God? What has this got to do with accepting Jesus Christ as your saviour?

Nature has enabled you to connect to a part of yourself more readily in your waking conscious day.

Intrigued iam. How can nature enable me to connect to a part of myself more readily in my waking conscious day? What part of myself do you refer to?

Regarding Jesus, to observe a life (even if it was a story)

So do you believe the life of Jesus is an account of an imaginary or a real person?

lived in a certain fashion, to strive to live with integrity and a sense of your fellow man being worthy just by virtue of their existence.

What do you think about these verses?

Romans 3:25-26 God put [Christ] forward . . . to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness . . . so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Romans 15:8-9 Christ has become a servant to the circumcision on behalf of the truth of God to confirm the promises given to the fathers, and for the Gentiles to glorify God for His mercy.

Matthew 5:17 Jesus said, "I did not come to abolish but to fulfill."

John 12:27 Jesus said, "For this purpose I came to this hour. Father, glorify Your name."

John 17:4 Jesus prayed, "I glorified You on the earth, having accomplished the work which You have given Me to do."

John 18:37 Jesus answered, "For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice."

Mark 1:38 [Jesus] said to them, "Let us go somewhere else to the towns nearby, so that I may preach there also; for that is what I came for."

John 9:39 And Jesus said, "For judgment I came into this world, so that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may become blind" (but see John 3:17).

Luke 19:10 Jesus said, "For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost."

1 Timothy 1:15 "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners."

John 3:16-17 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him" (but see John 9:39).

Mark 10:45 "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."

Matthew 10:34-35 Jesus said, "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.

John 10:10 Jesus said, "I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly."

1 John 3:8 "The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil."

Hebrews 2:14 "Since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and might free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives."

On one hand i have the Bible - with instruction on how to be reconciled to God and the formula to become saved.

Now, i have you on the other hand - with a different doctrine and different offer.

What can you offer me and why is your theory on Jesus more precise and correct then traditional/orthodox Christian thought?

What valid reason do you have to reject these scriptures?

Loving ones neighbor as yourself, and even trying to loves ones enemy etc etc,

My dear you left out some important detail and please excuse my bluntness. Your reply seems cherry picked.

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

What do you think about the whole verse in particular Jesus' words to Love thy God with all thy heart?
Why did you leave that part out?

Why do you accept certain parts of what Jesus says but ignore other parts?

presents a counter position to our own basic survival drives, fears and selfish agendas. That process connects you to a deeper part of your being, because you are letting go of aspects of a self driven agenda and are delving more into a interconnected life. Jesus can be a trigger for that process.

How can our Lord Jesus Christ be a trigger for such a thing?

Please consider these 2 verses

John 3:16-17 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him" (but see John 9:39).

Romans 1:25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

What u think? Why is it that what you say contradicts what is written?

Its a good question. it presents a different aspect to your being. A greater awareness, a more intuitive approach, something more relaxed and free.

So both nature and Jesus have the ability or potential to enable myself to move beyond the rigid construct of my egoic self, and presents something else. This something else is greater awareness, a more intuitive approach and something more relaxed and free.

Check this out.

Ego - a person's sense of self-esteem or self-importance.

Self esteem - confidence in one's own worth or abilities; self-respect.

Self inportance - an exaggerated sense of one's own value or importance.

What is this different aspect to our being you speak? What or who am i getting in tune with ie what is at the back of nature/Jesus?

Also guidance,

Who or what is guiding me? How am i guided and what gives this guidance?

I see the intuitive expression as a more guided one than the cognitive expression.

The ability to understand something instinctively, without the need for conscious reasoning. What made you reach this conclusion that intuitive expression is a more guided one than the cognitive expression?

When would i choose intuition over cognition?

Its something I've allowed more into my life over the past decade of so and its been rewarding.

Would you say you feel less self important and have less self esteem?

I do sense that I am part of a greater whole and experience that in the direction my intuition takes me.

What do you believe this greater whole to be?

Eyeswideopen -"What is the greater whole for me?"

Icon - "please indulge me "

Eyeswideopen -"Well currently it gets called the universe, of which I am part. It needs no more addition for me."

What do you mean here when you say you are apart of a greater thing, namely, the universe?

My dear what does that mean?

Cheers

 

[the iconoclast]

Honey, I'm a lot of things, but "shy" isn't one of them.

Hey hey you

Yes!!! Iam someones honey!!!!

I think you and i will get along quite well. You seem to have a sense of humour and believe me, i know how not to take things seriously. Hahaha God bless you my dear!!!

Nauseatingly introverted, yes, but not shy.

Excellant you are not nervous or timid in the company of other people. Unfortunately i meant it as - less than; short of and in regard to detail.

so I don't think the Socratic approach is needed in this case.

My dear there is always time for cooperative argumentative dialogue between individuals, based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to draw out ideas and underlying presuppositions.

Anything else would be mundane.

The answer to your question lies in the verses, which are exceedingly self-explanatory,

Please excuse me, it does not seem exceedingly self-explanatory.

Lets recap.

Job 12:7 But ask the animals, and they will instruct you; ask the birds of the air, and they will tell you.

Psalm 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands.

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse

These are the verses you used to confirm the light of God is found in both nature and Jesus. You seem to be reluctant to show me how this is so, dont worry ill start the ball running.

In Job 12:7 we have Job’s answer to Zophar’s discourse Job 12:7 concerns God’s unsearchable wisdom, almighty power, and absolute sovereignty: thou dost not need, says Job, to go into heaven or hell to know it; but thou mayest learn it even from the brute creatures. The beasts of the earth, the fowls of the air, the fishes of the sea, all animals, and even plants, fruits, and flowers, are daily and hourly evidences to us, of the being and infinite perfections of God.

Now it is your turn, show me how this verse confirms your pantheist position that the light of God is found in both nature and Jesus - and that this verse is not eluding to evidence of creation?

This song - psalm 19 - distinctly divides itself into three parts, very well described by the translators in the ordinary heading of our version.

The creatures show God's glory, Psalms 19:1-6

The word shows his grace, Psalms 19:7-11

David prays for grace, Psalms 19:12-

Song 19 verse 1 speaks of evidence of the Creator through the wonder of His creation.

Now its your turn show me how this verse confirms your pantheist position that the light of God is found in both nature and Jesus?

I bring your attention to Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers Romans 1:20.

"For, though there were parts of God’s being into which the eye could not penetrate, still they were easily to be inferred from the character of His visible creation, which bore throughout the stamp of Omnipotence and Divinity.

The invisible things of him.—His invisible attributes, afterwards explained as “His eternal power and Godhead.”

Are clearly seen . . . by the things that are made.—There is something of a play upon words here.

“The unseen is seen—discerned by the eye of the mind—being inferred or perceived by the help of that which is made,”

i.e., as we should say, by the phenomena of external nature. Even His eternal power and Godhead.—A summary expression for those attributes which, apart from revelation, were embodied in the idea of God.

Of these “power” is the most obvious. St. Paul does not go into the questions that have been raised in recent times as to the other qualities which are to be inferred as existing in the Author of nature; but he sums them up under a name that might be used as well by a Pagan philosopher as by a Christian—the attributes included in the one term “Godhead.”

Divinity would be, perhaps, a more correct translation of the expression. What is meant is “divine nature,” rather than “divine personality.” So that they are without excuse.—They could not plead ignorance." Now it is your turn my dear.

When we consider romans 1:20, What have you got to prove your pantheist position that the light of God is found in both nature and Jesus?

It's not a matter of "should" or "shouldn't". One is free to accept Christian atonement as much as one is free to accept that God held up a mountain with His pinkie finger.

Please excuse me, what do you mean here?

Likewise, your opinions are correct or else you wouldn't have them.

It is true. We have our own opinions and they are correct or else we would not have them!

We are at odds so far. I disagree with most of what you are saying and you wont put in any effort to defend your position.

Why did you engage me? just to make statements?

Funny how that works, eh?

Hmmm.... i dont know my dear, probably wouldnt have used the word funny. Id say its more a common occurrence than an amusement!

Why would compelling be needed?

Haha.

What would oblige you to consider that Jesus lived, died and was ressurected so you could be reconciled with God?

What would make you consider accepting Jesus into your heart? Jesus has an offer for you. What can you offer me? Cheers

I bring you love my new friend and an offer.

 

[the iconoclast]

What makes you think that?

Hey jane ;p

Im done for today - after those 2 replies to our friends. Ill catch you tomorrow or after weekend.

You seem to be very motivated today, good work and i cannot wait to see what you got for me.

 

[Noxot]

sin and salvation are very basic realities in nature, the universe, and in humanity.

basically sin = evil and salvation = goodness.

or maybe death = sin and life = salvation is another way to think of it. and sin is a confusion of systems, a degrading into a lesser state of being like having a sickness or deformity in a person. goodness is health and a good and perfect ordering of things.

you can argue about the ugly clothing and pathetic attempts that some tribes of humans used but we all generally share the same systems. we have both sin and salvation in us because the potential of both good and evil are in us.

humans are not perfect because they experience a confusion and an infighting of good and evil in themselves which makes a mixture of both when we only partially accept what is good such as when we love the evils in our tribe and hate the goodness in other tribes.

in it's pure form sin and salvation is like a beautiful painting of Michael the archangel stomping on Satan but since for most humans they are in some way overcome by evil the entire painting is made imperfect, ugly, and defiled in whatever ways it is.

another way to understand it is that humans are the image of God but as much as they are sinful that image is wrapped and thus their understanding of sin and salvation or good and evil is also distorted because goodness has all wisdom in it and evil is irrational by it's very nature.

what Dostoyevsky said is true within his own context because to the religious God and goodness are the same thing. so you could replace God with goodness and it would probably make sense.

but the tree of life ( Christ in us) is a new way to understand things in Gods wisdom and love and it surmounts even disgusting pictures like some of the junk in the OT by the dual metabolic systems of catabolism 'breaking down' and anabolism 'building up', which is an essential feature of mankinds biological system and also others like his mind and heart.

so the picture of Christ crucified and his resurrection are very original to this reality. it happens in all of us.

 

[Eyes wide Open]

Hey hey my new friend

So as a non Christian, you do not need to consider salvation and atonement - because these concepts are Christian. You consider this a valid reason because your life and experience are validity enough for you.

What is it about your life and what are some experiences that are valid enough for you to reject the atonement of our Lord Jesus Christ, and have no need to consider such a thing?



Well my dear, what about these brain scans - that observe what a person experiences within nature. How do they support for your statement?

What about these brain scans that observe what a person experiences within nature made you come to your conclusion?

Could you supply a link so i can inspect what it is you are talking about and to understand you better?

Please excuse me my friend. What are you talking about



Please indulge me friend.

What experience of being within nature gives support for your statement? What experience of being within nature helped you come to your conclusion?



How did you reach this conclusion? Do you have link to provide me so i can inspect? What has this got to do with Jesus, nature and the light of God? What has this got to do with accepting Jesus Christ as your saviour?



What has this got to do with Jesus, nature and the light of God? What has this got to do with accepting Jesus Christ as your saviour?



Intrigued iam. How can nature enable me to connect to a part of myself more readily in my waking conscious day? What part of myself do you refer to?



So do you believe the life of Jesus is an account of an imaginary or a real person?



What do you think about these verses?

Romans 3:25-26 God put [Christ] forward . . . to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness . . . so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Romans 15:8-9 Christ has become a servant to the circumcision on behalf of the truth of God to confirm the promises given to the fathers, and for the Gentiles to glorify God for His mercy.

Matthew 5:17 Jesus said, "I did not come to abolish but to fulfill."

John 12:27 Jesus said, "For this purpose I came to this hour. Father, glorify Your name."

John 17:4 Jesus prayed, "I glorified You on the earth, having accomplished the work which You have given Me to do."

John 18:37 Jesus answered, "For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice."

Mark 1:38 [Jesus] said to them, "Let us go somewhere else to the towns nearby, so that I may preach there also; for that is what I came for."

John 9:39 And Jesus said, "For judgment I came into this world, so that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may become blind" (but see John 3:17).

Luke 19:10 Jesus said, "For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost."

1 Timothy 1:15 "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners."

John 3:16-17 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him" (but see John 9:39).

Mark 10:45 "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."

Matthew 10:34-35 Jesus said, "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.

John 10:10 Jesus said, "I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly."

1 John 3:8 "The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil."

Hebrews 2:14 "Since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and might free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives."

On one hand i have the Bible - with instruction on how to be reconciled to God and the formula to become saved.

Now, i have you on the other hand - with a different doctrine and different offer.

What can you offer me and why is your theory on Jesus more precise and correct then traditional/orthodox Christian thought?

What valid reason do you have to reject these scriptures?



My dear you left out some important detail and please excuse my bluntness. Your reply seems cherry picked.

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

What do you think about the whole verse in particular Jesus' words to Love thy God with all thy heart?
Why did you leave that part out?

Why do you accept certain parts of what Jesus says but ignore other parts?



How can our Lord Jesus Christ be a trigger for such a thing?

Please consider these 2 verses

John 3:16-17 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him" (but see John 9:39).

Romans 1:25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

What u think? Why is it that what you say contradicts what is written?



So both nature and Jesus have the ability or potential to enable myself to move beyond the rigid construct of my egoic self, and presents something else. This something else is greater awareness, a more intuitive approach and something more relaxed and free.

Check this out.

Ego - a person's sense of self-esteem or self-importance.

Self esteem - confidence in one's own worth or abilities; self-respect.

Self inportance - an exaggerated sense of one's own value or importance.

What is this different aspect to our being you speak? What or who am i getting in tune with ie what is at the back of nature/Jesus?



Who or what is guiding me? How am i guided and what gives this guidance?



The ability to understand something instinctively, without the need for conscious reasoning. What made you reach this conclusion that intuitive expression is a more guided one than the cognitive expression?

When would i choose intuition over cognition?



Would you say you feel less self important and have less self esteem?



What do you believe this greater whole to be?

Eyeswideopen -"What is the greater whole for me?"

Icon - "please indulge me "

Eyeswideopen -"Well currently it gets called the universe, of which I am part. It needs no more addition for me."

What do you mean here when you say you are apart of a greater thing, namely, the universe?

My dear what does that mean?

Cheers

I'm writing a book about my experinces and I promise to include you in an online version which will answer some of your questions, but perhaps not. I answered your questions to the best of my ability given my levels of time and desire to indulge you on these topics. Take care

 

[Noxot]

gotta agree with Jane. the idea that we have to atone for anything is a concept that can be discarded for spiritual betterment.

I see no difference between the two things

but an outside inspection of 100 people that all appear to be the same is only the surface. the 100 might all be different on the inside. that is the difference between the letter and the spirit.

being able to see from multiple povs is good because when you look at something in nature you can see it in many different ways. if you do that then you know the object you inspect better than if you would have just looked at one photo.

who cares about all the chaos of povs unless they are beautiful?

 

[Noxot]

sadly so many people are ideologically possessed and so they all look like clones of one another. what an affront to God who deserves all beauty.

or maybe I should say that it is their spirits that become crucified? or that their spirits are babes? or some are just like a pile of many bones. or a harlot who gets drunk on the blood of the saints?

even in the spiritual world this appears to happen so I guess "how close to God can we get" is one of the most important things about existence. but after a ways of travel I become struck with pain because I behold beings more beautiful than myself.

 

[Rajni]

What would oblige you to consider that Jesus lived, died and was resurrected so you could be reconciled with God?

What would make you consider accepting Jesus into your heart? Jesus has an offer for you.

You assume I haven't already been there, done that.
As for the rest, I've already addressed it.
Hey hey, cheers!

 

[Eyes wide Open]

as a non Christian, you do not need to consider salvation and atonement - because these concepts are Christian. You consider this a valid reason because your life and experience are validity enough for you.

What is it about your life and what are some experiences that are valid enough for you to reject the atonement of our Lord Jesus Christ, and have no need to consider such a thing?

Firstly I seem to have found some time, although the desire is limited.

Atonement is the basic outlook that we have to do right what we have done wrong, and in the Christian doctrine Jesus enables that for the Christian via the sacrifice of blood. But right and wrong are elements of our own perception and awareness. If I’m unaware of a wrong it’s not wrong, but if I become aware of it, I stop doing the said action, or a least I try. A basic example would be that to be aware that a slap in the face hurts means I try not to slap somebody. If I continue to slap somebody knowing it causes them pain would be an error in my awareness, to go against what I know. This damages my psyche (my experience of life) on a certain level. The only saving to be had from that process is me. I’m in the process of correcting what I’m aware of, so my answer prior about not needing atonement or to be saved was correct. I am in a continual process of awareness, understanding and action . I’m not a Christian and I don’t subscribe to the Christian doctrine of salvation and atonement. I hope that's a little clearer.

Well my dear, what about these brain scans - that observe what a person experiences within nature. How do they support for your statement?

What about these brain scans that observe what a person experiences within nature made you come to your conclusion?

Could you supply a link so i can inspect what it is you are talking about and to understand you better?

Please excuse me my friend. What are you talking about

What experience of being within nature gives support for your statement? What experience of being within nature helped you come to your conclusion?
How did you reach this conclusion? Do you have link to provide me so i can inspect? What has this got to do with Jesus, nature and the light of God? What has this got to do with accepting Jesus Christ as your saviour?

I stated that both nature and Jesus were connective mechanisms. Nature creates Alpha brain wave function and the link provided explains the benefits of Alpha brain wave function. The light of God was referenced by dlambeth stating that's what he found within nature and the link provided enough scope of the alpha brain wave experince to make that statement true for dlambeth in my opinion.
It has nothing to do with accepting Jesus as my saviour, a point I made in my fist comment. The reflection I made was that Jesus and nature were connective mechanisms. I stand by the statement.

What has this got to do with Jesus, nature and the light of God? What has this got to do with accepting Jesus Christ as your saviour?

You've repeated yourself. I've answered this already.

Intrigued iam. How can nature enable me to connect to a part of myself more readily in my waking conscious day? What part of myself do you refer to?

Refer to the link. It's a part of yourself that can remain hidden in a thought processing active state.

So do you believe the life of Jesus is an account of an imaginary or a real person?

I'm happy to conclude Jesus was a historical figure.

What do you think about these verses?

Romans 3:25-26 God put [Christ] forward . . . to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness . . . so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Romans 15:8-9 Christ has become a servant to the circumcision on behalf of the truth of God to confirm the promises given to the fathers, and for the Gentiles to glorify God for His mercy.

Matthew 5:17 Jesus said, "I did not come to abolish but to fulfill."

John 12:27 Jesus said, "For this purpose I came to this hour. Father, glorify Your name."

John 17:4 Jesus prayed, "I glorified You on the earth, having accomplished the work which You have given Me to do."

John 18:37 Jesus answered, "For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice."

Mark 1:38 [Jesus] said to them, "Let us go somewhere else to the towns nearby, so that I may preach there also; for that is what I came for."

John 9:39 And Jesus said, "For judgment I came into this world, so that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may become blind" (but see John 3:17).

Luke 19:10 Jesus said, "For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost."

1 Timothy 1:15 "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners."

John 3:16-17 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him" (but see John 9:39).

Mark 10:45 "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."

Matthew 10:34-35 Jesus said, "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.

John 10:10 Jesus said, "I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly."

1 John 3:8 "The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil."

Hebrews 2:14 "Since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and might free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives."

I don't think anything about them. I treat all religious scripture the same. I'm not religious.

On one hand i have the Bible - with instruction on how to be reconciled to God and the formula to become saved.

In your opinion as a Christian. Biased perhaps. I'm biased to, in fact we all are. It's called our perception.

Now, i have you on the other hand - with a different doctrine and different offer.
What can you offer me and why is your theory on Jesus more precise and correct then traditional/orthodox Christian thought?

What valid reason do you have to reject these scriptures?

I don't offer you a doctrine. I offer my perspective about my life. I reject the scriptures because I'm not a Christian. I've made this point already. The valid reason is my life and experience. It doesn't fit with the Christian doctrine.

My dear you left out some important detail and please excuse my bluntness. Your reply seems cherry picked.

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

What do you think about the whole verse in particular Jesus' words to Love thy God with all thy heart?
Why did you leave that part out?

Why do you accept certain parts of what Jesus says but ignore other parts?

I cherry picked in relation to what it is to live a life of integrity as mentioned prior. I'm free to cherry pick what I like thanks.

Please consider these 2 verses

John 3:16-17 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him" (but see John 9:39).

Romans 1:25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

What u think? Why is it that what you say contradicts what is written?in

I told you before I'm not a Christian so it's not surprising if I contradict it.

Check this out.

Ego - a person's sense of self-esteem or self-importance.

Self esteem - confidence in one's own worth or abilities; self-respect.

Self inportance - an exaggerated sense of one's own value or importance.

What is this different aspect to our being you speak? What or who am i getting in tune with ie what is at the back of nature/Jesus?

Points for trying I suppose. But no. Refer to the link again. There's mention of the ego.

Who or what is guiding me? How am i guided and what gives this guidance?

I don't know. That's for you to answer.

When would i choose intuition over cognition?

When you decide to.

Would you say you feel less self important and have less self esteem?

It's not a psychology session. Stay on point.

What do you believe this greater whole to to be.

I don't hold a belief mechanism for it as such. It's s conceptual image of a whole, of which I'm part. It makes it an easy mindset to create from. Me being a part is to observe the parts that make up the universe, im one of the parts. I experince that via intuitive guidance as stated before.

 

[the iconoclast]

Hey hey,

And a hey hey to you to my dear

You assume I haven't already been there, done that.

Fair enough. What have you done to become saved? Where were you?

As for the rest, I've already addressed it.

I disagree, it seems you wanted me to accept what you had to say without question and you are not willing to defend your position.

cheers!

You are most welcome my new friend.

 

[the iconoclast]

What makes you think that?

I don't think the belief that our actions qualify as a metaphysical contaminant/affront to a personal deity is (or could ever be) the human default. ESPECIALLY since what qualifies as sin and what qualifies as unethical by rational standards is, at best, partially overlapping.

There is nothing rationally unethical about working on a sunday, drinking tea, eating hot spices, not circumcising your children, or being in a same-sex relationship - yet religious taboos of one religion or another insist that these are bad.
The taboo looks nonsensical to outsiders, but makes perfect sense to those inundated by the respective world view. And that, really, should tell us everything about it.

But I suppose this is the reason why many religious people think that people who do not belong to the same faith must be immoral, either intentionally or out of ignorance: it is just inconceivable to a religious person that ethical standards might be possible outside of the ideological framework they are familiar with. Even comparatively intellectual minds are guilty of this, see Dostoyevsky: "Without God, everything is permitted." No, it isn't. Not by a long stretch.

Our ability to react negatively to anti-social behaviour (and to feel good about cooperative endeavours) precedes our current level of self-aware consciousness by a long time, and is shared by plenty of other species that live in groups. It is neither connected to nor does it rely on any kind of theism, but just connects to the kind of interdependence that links us to each other.

Hey jane please excuse the delay. I'm still working on this post - its gonna be a long one, i know you prefer many words

@Eyes wide Open please be patient with me. I will get to you soon

Cheers and God Bless you 2.

Love and peace to you

 

[the iconoclast]

If you answered just ONE post of mine with as meticulous a reply as I do yours (especially as far as YOUR OWN positions are concerned), I might actually be interested in discussing further with you.

Hey jane.

Hope you are well and much love to you, and your family.

Im still working on my reply. Got through half and wow its going to be long - i know you like quantity.

Jane - "If you answered just ONE post of mine with as meticulous a reply as I do yours (especially as far as YOUR OWN positions are concerned), I might actually be interested in discussing further with you."

Hey hey @Eyes wide Open . Im sorry i havent even started to look into your post.

It will be ever so slightly delayed. Dont worry im very motivated to reply cya soon

 

[bhsmte]

LOL!

 

[the iconoclast]

LOL!

Hey hey and why not. I too shall laugh out loud.

LOL

 

[bhsmte]

Hey hey and why not. I too shall laugh out loud.

LOL

Knock yourself out.

 

[the iconoclast]

Firstly I seem to have found some time,

Hey hey eyes wide open ;p

It is with great sadness that ill have to inform you i cannot address your post atm. I keep get distracted.

When the time is right ill come looking for you and we will continue - i do not know when that will be.

Sorry my dear, God bless and cheers for all you effort. Good work

 

[the iconoclast]

I think this statement cannot be stressed enough, since some Christian posters do not seem to quite grasp it. While all this talk of sin, atonement and salvation may indeed make perfect sense within the ideological framework of Christianity, that is a specificity of that particular religion.

Hey hey my dear jane hope u r well. So it cannot be stressed enough, as a non Christian you don't need to consider atonement and salvation. The specificity is for that particular religion and does not make sense to you and your reality. Curious. What does makes sense in your reality - if not sin and atonement ie what does makes sense to you/what is happening in reality and why should we as christians consider anything you have to say?

To give an obvious comparison that drives home the point for everyone around here: body thetans and auditing fit perfectly into the ideological framework of Scientology, and make sense to those who operate within that world view, but that does not mean I need to consider them once I've determined that I do not find them (or the rest of the world view) convincing as a model of reality.

So in other words you came to a conclusion that scientology is wrong. Body thetans and auditing fit into scientology, how is this a good comparison to sin and atonement? For fun, lets briefly examine it. Scientology is a body of religious beliefs and practices launched in May 1952 by American author L. Ron Hubbard (1911–86). Hubbard initially developed a program of ideas called Dianetics, which was distributed through the Dianetics Foundation. Hubbard describes the etymology of the word "Scientology" as coming from the Latin word scio, meaning know or distinguish, and the Greek word logos, meaning "the word or outward form by which the inward thought is expressed and made known". Hubbard writes, "thus, Scientology means knowing about knowing, or science of knowledge". He defined Scientology's aims as: "A civilization without insanity, without criminals and without war; where the world can prosper and honest beings can have rights, and where man is free to rise to greater heights, are the aims of Scientology." He described Scientology as an "applied religious philosophy" because, according to him, it consists of a metaphysical doctrine, a theory of psychology, and teachings in morality. The core of Scientology teaching lies in the belief that "each human has a reactive mind that responds to life's traumas, clouding the analytic mind and keeping us from experiencing reality." Scientologists undergo auditing to discover sources of this trauma, believing that re-experiencing it neutralizes it and reinforces the ascendancy of the analytic mind, with the final goal believed to be achieving a spiritual state that Scientology calls "clear."

I agree with you in regard to your conclusion of scientology ie there is no need to consider such things. I further do not accept scientology because i have experienced God through Jesus Christ by the Holy Spirit. I got a result using the Christian formula and acknowledge these scripture.

2 John 1:9 Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. 2

Timothy 4:3 For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions,

Galatians 1:9 As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.

Matthew 15:13 He answered, “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be rooted up.

Mark 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. I do not believe in the system developed by the founder of the Church of Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard, which aims to relieve psychosomatic disorder by cleansing the mind of harmful mental images because I believe this man to be a false prophet.

Matthew 7:15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.

1 John 4:1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. I believe Scientology of being inspired by or sharing elements with some paricular esoteric and or occult systems. From wiki Hubbard's eldest son, Ronald DeWolf, related a story that L. Ron Hubbard had "first discovered Magick" at the age of sixteen when he read Aleister Crowley's The Book of the Law. Now that is a big red flag when my aleister crowleys name is mentioned in relation to someone or something. Here are some reasons why i do not agree with scientology. Could you please explain to me, your testing and thought process that led you to reject Jesus Christ as your Saviour? And why your rejection of scientology is a good comparison for your relection of Christianity?

There is no such thing as a good outcome of mixing these two.

So there is never a good outcome to mix morality and the belief in - and worship of - a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God. Moral authority cannot be given to the Christian God? Why not?

The best case scenario is that you'll find a religious justification for the stuff that pretty much everyone can agree on WITHOUT and regardless of religion,

While we may agree on things regardless of religion, you miss a point. God instructs us as to what He considers right and wrong behaviour. You have been instructed, what has instructed your conclusions on right and wrong behaviour. Lets look at abortion. How do you defend the practise? Ill set some limitations as to null out any appeal to extremes. Lets say you and i are in love. We become intimate - in this scenerio my character is not christian - and we have sex. You find yourself pregnant but do not want the child - any reason. The scan shows a healthy baby in the making. How would you justify abortion using your moral authority? How do you justify terminating a life?

but in that case, you've got moral principles that are decent in spite, not because of their conflation with religion.

What does this mean ie decent in spite and not because of conflation?

Harm.

So one justification for morality with out God is; will it cause harm. A physical injury, especially that which is deliberately inflicted. Or possibly To have an adverse effect on.

Consensual romantic and/or sexual relationships are not a crime, and there is no rational justification for criminalising same-sex relationships because of this.

Consensual romantic and or sexual relationships are not a crime. Lets dig in somemore and see what you have got. Would you say - as long as there is consent - any type of sexual relationship is acceptable? Why should beastality not incur a gaol sentence? What is the difference between a consensual same sex relationship that involves a 22yro man and a 12yro man with one that involves a 63yro man and a 18 yro man? And why is that same 12 yro allowed to choose his gender but is not allowed to consent to sex with an adult?

It's as random a religious taboo as "cover your face and hair in public" or "don't combine milk and meat".

Do you refer to the below scripture? 1

Corinthians 11:3 "Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head" Or hich scripture do you refer to? Mixtures of milk and meat (Hebrew: בשר בחלב, basar bechalav, literally "meat in milk") are prohibited according to Jewish law. This dietary law, basic to kashrut, is based on two verses in the Book of Exodus, which forbid "boiling a (kid) goat in its mother's milk"[1][2]and a third repetition of this prohibition in Deuteronomy. That the law was connected to a prohibition of Idolatry in Judaism More recently, a theogonous text named the birth of the gracious gods, found during the rediscovery of Ugarit, has been interpreted as saying that a Levantine ritual to ensure agricultural fertility involved the cooking of a young goat in its mother's milk, followed by the mixture being sprinkled upon the fields So not a random taboo. What you think?

For the reasons I already cited.

Please excuse me. I have gone back over our discussion and cannot see a reason as to why morality cannot be spiritually motivated. Could you please explain why it is so?

Yeah, and it attributes the mores of an iron age civilization to this deity, leading to rules such as "let the rapist marry his victim because she's damaged goods and nobody else will want her",

Who said anything about damaged goods? Im curious. Lets consider this period and the law of moses. How would you judge the situation and what outcome would you consider fair?

"collecting sticks on the sabbath is a deathworthy crime"

The Sabbath is considered holy and - under the law of Moses - certain things cannot be done; as it is a forced day off, to rest the body and to glorify God. The sabbath was instrumental to our weekend rest and relax. Without the sabbath you may still be working 7 days a week. Dont worry you are a gentile and you are not under the law of Moses but under the law of Grace - please read the below sextion for explanation. You will not be stoned for gathering sticks on the sabbath. Its all good!

, "eating shellfish or

You are a gentile and under the law of Grace, you can eat shellfish. There are some things from the law of Moses that continue into the law of Grace, the death penalty being one such thing. Leviticus says not to eat shellfish (Lev. 11:9-12) Romans 6:14, "You are not under law but under grace." The first covenant was that given through Moses at Sinai, commonly known as the law of Moses. The second was a universal covenant for mankind that issued from Jesus Christ, and was ratified by the Lord’s death (Mt. 26:28). The function of the Mosaic law was as follows: To demonstrate that the violation of divine law separates the perpetrator from God (Isa. 59:1-2). To declare that written law is needed to define sin (Rom. 7:7). To show, by recorded precedent, that sacred justice requires that a penalty be paid for law-breaking (Rom. 3:26; 1 Cor. 10:5ff). On the other hand, the dominant design of the New Covenant is to stress the redemptive mission of Christ as the only remedy for the human sin problem (Mt. 26:28; 1 Cor. 15:3). But i think it is unfair to suggest that there was an no abundant measure of grace under the law of Moses. Sin is a transgression of the law and im sure there is a transgression you would consider worthy of a penalty. From a New Covenant perspective, this God-breathed revelation, with all of its detailed dietary, sacrificial and sacerdotal Laws, is perceived to be wholly irrelevant by many evangelical Christians. This is what happened in pauls day. Paul brought about many Gentile conversions. This great influx of Gentile believers into the early church attracted much attention to the issue of the Mosaic Law’s relevance for the Christian. In Acts 15:1, we learn, "And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." And Acts 15:24 tells us that they were saying "you must be circumcised and keep the Law." It was determined that Paul and Barnabas should go up to Jerusalem to meet with the apostles and elders in order to settle this dispute. And it was here that the historic decision was made regarding the Christian’s relationship to the Law of Moses. Amid much debate and discussion, the apostle Peter asked regarding this matter: "Why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?" (Acts 15:10). It was then revealed by the Holy Spirit that the Gentile believers were not obligated to keep the Law of Moses, but they, as well as the Jews, are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus. It would seem at this point that the Law delivered by Moses to the Jews has no purpose whatsoever for the Christian; that it is altogether irrelevant. In Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians, he addressed this issue extensively as this church was also coming under the influence of "those of the circumcision," who were also known as the "Judaizers." In the midst of his letter to the believers in Galatia, Paul proceeds to ask the following question: "What purpose then does the Law serve?" (Galatians 3:19). Paul then goes on to answer this question, and while doing so he makes the following statement: "...for if there had been a Law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the Law. But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the Law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. Therefore the Law was our tutor to bring us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor," (Galatians 3:21–24). According to Paul, the Law was added because of "transgressions." This implies, as the NEB paraphrase suggests, that God’s Law was used to "make wrongdoing a legal offense." In other words, it was intended to reveal to us our moral bankruptcy so that we might discover how sinful we really are. After an individual has come to faith in Christ, the "tutor’s" job in showing them their sinfulness and therefore leading them to the Savior is accomplished, and they are, at that point, no longer under the "schoolmaster." As Paul so aptly stated in Romans 3:20, "Therefore by the deeds of the Law no flesh shall be justified in His sight, for by the Law is the knowledge of sin." And again in Romans 7:7, "I would not have known sin except through the Law." It is therefore indisputable that the Law of God is both relevant and pertinent. You can keep the law if you want to but you are a gentile and not obligated. This criticism suggests you know better than God.

wearing mixed fibres is wrong"

use mixed seed or fabrics (Lev. 19:19), That the law was connected to a prohibition of Idolatry in Judaism. I for one prefer my fibres unmixed. Better product!

or "if you beat a slave, but he doesn't die and can walk after three days, it's okay".

Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property. Slavery takes on many forms and some people sell themselves into slavery for many reasons and not always forcefully taken into it. Lets consider a time and place where slavery is rampant and an unfortunate outcome in a society. God does not endorse slavery but he does regulate and this law punishes a slave owner who beat his slave to death. When we conaider this verse, What law would you put in place to protect slaves?

The psyche is very much damaged by anti-social behaviour. You can literally drive people insane through isolation, and anti-social deeds drive a wedge between you and the rest of humanity.

Hey jane im going to stop here. If i have missed anything important please bring it to my attention. Cheers


ive got a better idea. Ill let you off addressing this whole post in its entirety and you can hit me with your best shot.

What is your best arguement for rejecting Jesus Christ?

Cheers

Ps. I only did this post to show you i could and this is only the tip of the iceberg. Ive got an arsenal!

 

[dlamberth]

What is your best arguement for rejecting Jesus Christ?

How can a person accept Jesus Christ as a personal savior when it's the whole of Christian theology that's being rejected?

 

[Eyes wide Open]

Hey hey eyes wide open ;p

It is with great sadness that ill have to inform you i cannot address your post atm. I keep get distracted.



When the time is right ill come looking for you and we will continue - i do not know when that will be.

Sorry my dear, God bless and cheers for all you effort. Good work

All good.
Regards, Benedict.

 

[Carbon]

The importance of reading, and to a greater extent obeying, the Bible is largely symbolic. Like saying the pledge of allegiance in the United States, or rooting for the home team, the value of the act is less about the thing itself and more to do with what it signals about you. The literal meaning of each of these breaks down on close inspection. Rooting for the home team for example has no real literal meaning, how could it? The players change over time, the name changes, heck even the location changes (hey Oilers fans). So what does it even mean to root for "the team" when what constitutes the team is constantly changing? Never the same man nor the same river. Being a home team fan means something more abstract and at the same time much more practical, like "I am a loyal person. I am a fierce friend and a fierce foe, so you want me on your side."

Reading the Bible is likewise more about signaling. The literal value of reading the Bible depends where and when you are in the world, and each of those places and times has had a more or less different Bible. In the vast majority illiteracy and lack of cheap copies made reading the Bible impossible. Also reading too much of the Bible is often even corrosive to faith as others mentioned above. Again the real meaning is something more like "I will sacrifice my time for my tribe" or less commonly "I am educated on our tribe enough to beat would-be attackers".