Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Christian theology.

GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2011 5:29:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Or instead I could say, true Christian theology, since there is loads of supposed Christian theologies out there, that if you follow them back logically, they don't actually add up.

After consulting the prospect that I may be a Calvinist, I thought a little and came to a surprising conclusion about the relationship that God has with humanity.

The theological idea is consistent with the nature of God, the nature of God are the following things; God is eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, infinite, self existent and so on. But within those attributes lies His characteristics. And His character consists of righteousness and justice, love, light, wisdom, faithfulness, merciful and grace, truth, spirit and so on.

With that said, God cannot be inconsistent, it is impossible for God to go against Himself. And you might say, "Well God isn't all powerful then." Yes He is. So from that possible comment I will give you a lesson on power. If I was really powerful, I wouldn't have to go against anything. Let me give you an example; God cannot lie, and you may say, "Well because He cannot lie, that makes Him not all powerful." You see, those who lie, only lie when they feel the need to, not because they want to. God never feels the need to lie, because God never needs to, everything is under His control, and the liar has nothing under his control. So God is all powerful because God has all under His control.

So with that out of the way lets get started.

God is self consist as I have said already, so how does that effect us? If God is righteous, and mankind isn't then we are in big trouble. God, because He created us cannot tolerate unrighteousness, if God just left us alone, that wouldn't be just of God. If God let us all into heaven that too would not be just. Now God can send Himself to pay our debt and through that we are made righteous in His sight. Because it is Him who He sees as our sin, that does not mean that He has sinned. But theologically speaking, the case isn't closed, yet. We have the problem of God being all knowing and all powerful at the same time. And so it goes, if God is all knowing and all powerful, it would seem that God has created people purposely to go to hell for no reason at all. Yet on the other hand, God has created people to go to heaven for no reason either, or alternatively said, God has sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to die and take away our wrath for absolutely no reason.

But does there have to be a reason? Well if God is eternal, and Jesus Christ is the Word, as said in John 1, it reads the Word (Jesus Christ) as being eternal also, the death of Jesus Christ was always going to take place. Or in other words, it is in the nature of God to do such a thing. But you cannot just take that good part of the story and throw away the equally pleasant and equally wonderful part. Since they, as you will see by reading on, are inter connected, or co-existent, one cannot be without the other.

If God is self consistent, God cannot go against Himself, in anything. God is all of those wonderful characteristics that I mentioned earlier. He is love, mercy, right, just, light, wisdom, grace, and so on. But if God is those things, then God cannot go against those things. For example, if God is love, God must be love, there is no point in saying, "I am love." Yet not being able to prove to yourself that you are actually that. How would God prove to Himself that He is what He is? One might say, "Oh that is easy, God is all knowing." Yes God is, but God cannot be illogical either, if I have never experience what light is, I wouldn't know what darkness is either. In the same way, God would not know what love was, if God was never loving to begin with. You wouldn't know what darkness is until you knew what light was, saying that you have experienced darkness without knowing what light is does not justify you knowing what darkness is.

So in this, God can be all knowing and all powerful, because God Him self has become self evident and self consistent through sending people to hell and by bringing people to heaven through His Son. Now when I say, "God has become." I mean God always was, because God is all knowing. And God can only be all knowing by Him being self evident, and God can only be self consistent by sending His Son for us, it can be said either way.

According to Christianity, people will go to hell. But people will go to heaven also. God, if He is God has to be loving and gracious towards Himself, not only humanity. If God is love, God can't just show that He is to Himself but not to us. But you say, "God cannot be both, that would be contradicting." No, I don't think so. Why should God create people to go to hell, only to prove to Himself that He is what He thinks He is. But why also should God be loving towards us if He is righteous and, we aren't? I believe this justifies why God has purposely create people to send to hell, but in return God had no logical option, but to sacrifice Himself for us, and because of that, people will go to hell and people will go to heaven.

So either way you say it, one causes the other logically. And I believe what God has done, is radiant throughout the entire universe. You cannot have evil without good for example, and you cannot have death without life. You cannot have heat with cold, you cannot have light without darkness, and you couldn't laugh if you couldn't cry. There would be no wisdom without stupidity, there would be no morality without immorality, or there would be no justice without injustice and the list just goes on and on.

And when you look at it within the life of a Christian, he or she should be sorrowful over his or her sin, yet at the very same time, he or she should also not beat themselves up about their sin because of what Christ Jesus has done. Now, you may ask, why would Jesus Christ tell us to go preach the Gospel? I believe it is so that we can be obedient to Him, no matter what. God wants obedient children, not children who will be obedient for a reward. Although we will get rewarded in heaven for our obedience, we ought to be obedient because God says we should. In the very same way, a Christian should have faith in Jesus Christ, yet at the same time that faith will be shown by his or her works. Like faith is dead without works, obedience is also dead without reward. But the faith and obedience are necessary, whereas works and rewards are sufficient enough to say you have either faith or obedience. Do you see the comparison there?

Do you see the comparison in all of this, between God being self consistent and Jesus Christ being evident to us that God is that He says He is?

Thoughts, and if you do not understand, say that you don't understand. I don't want to go off on something that has very little or no meaning to this.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2011 6:00:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Most of your misunderstandings come from taking scripture that was meant to describe the inner workings of the mind to be something outside the mind.

It's a common mistake in theology of all religions.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2011 6:02:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/14/2011 6:00:58 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Most of your misunderstandings come from taking scripture that was meant to describe the inner workings of the mind to be something outside the mind.

It's a common mistake in theology of all religions.

Didn't understand that at all.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2011 6:08:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'm saying that you are interpreting scripture incorrectly.

Certain scripture makes sense metaphorically if you compare it to your own inner psychology. If you examine yourself, and become aware of yourself, you see how it makes sense.

Try reading the New Testament with that type of mind set, and see how drastically different your interpretation is.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2011 6:09:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/14/2011 6:07:19 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Cool story, bro.

Tell it again.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2011 6:23:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/14/2011 6:08:29 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
I'm saying that you are interpreting scripture incorrectly.

Certain scripture makes sense metaphorically if you compare it to your own inner psychology. If you examine yourself, and become aware of yourself, you see how it makes sense.

Try reading the New Testament with that type of mind set, and see how drastically different your interpretation is.

Yeah, ok, but how does what you just said, relate to what this forum says? And also, how often do you read the Bible?
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2011 6:25:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/14/2011 6:09:29 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 4/14/2011 6:07:19 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Cool story, bro.

Tell it again.

Imagine, I copy and paste it below. That would be telling it again.
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2011 6:28:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/14/2011 6:23:44 PM, GodSands wrote:
At 4/14/2011 6:08:29 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
I'm saying that you are interpreting scripture incorrectly.

Certain scripture makes sense metaphorically if you compare it to your own inner psychology. If you examine yourself, and become aware of yourself, you see how it makes sense.

Try reading the New Testament with that type of mind set, and see how drastically different your interpretation is.

By the way, I still don't get what you mean. You aren't being coherent at all.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2011 6:30:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/14/2011 5:50:59 PM, GodSands wrote:
"You cannot have heat with cold..."

Sorry I meant, "You cannot have heat without cold..."

That should be the reverse. You can't have cold, without (knowledge of) heat.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
headphonegut
Posts: 4,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2011 6:31:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/14/2011 6:08:29 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
I'm saying that you are interpreting scripture incorrectly.

there's a correct way to interpret scripture? do tell how

Certain scripture makes sense metaphorically if you compare it to your own inner psychology. If you examine yourself, and become aware of yourself, you see how it makes sense.

to you maybe I never understood how you can't be "aware of yourself" whatever that means BTW I don't understand how you can compare anything " to your own inner psychology" tell me how you do that as well I would like to really really know see I put to really to show that I must know

Try reading the New Testament with that type of mind set, and see how drastically different your interpretation is.

why would anybody read the new testament it omits many relevant points like jesus was born of virgin I guess that particular story point has been used too many times.
crying to soldiers coming home to their dogs why do I torment myself with these videos?
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2011 6:35:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/14/2011 6:30:29 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 4/14/2011 5:50:59 PM, GodSands wrote:
"You cannot have heat with cold..."

Sorry I meant, "You cannot have heat without cold..."

That should be the reverse. You can't have cold, without (knowledge of) heat.

But if the cold didn't exist, or if you had no knowledge of what cold is, then you wouldn't know what heat is either, right? I mean, cold is an absense of heat, and heat is the absense of the cold. I think both ways work either way you say it.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2011 6:40:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/14/2011 6:35:42 PM, GodSands wrote:
But if the cold didn't exist, or if you had no knowledge of what cold is, then you wouldn't know what heat is either, right?

No. Heat is a measurement of particle energy. A concept of cold is unnecessary.
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2011 6:44:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/14/2011 6:40:29 PM, Puck wrote:
At 4/14/2011 6:35:42 PM, GodSands wrote:
But if the cold didn't exist, or if you had no knowledge of what cold is, then you wouldn't know what heat is either, right?

No. Heat is a measurement of particle energy. A concept of cold is unnecessary.

Would you say the cold is a minus of particle energy? If so, one cannot appreciate the heat without knowing the cold.

Darkness is the absense of light, but you can still know what darkness is, same with the heat and with the cold.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2011 6:45:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/14/2011 6:35:42 PM, GodSands wrote:
At 4/14/2011 6:30:29 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 4/14/2011 5:50:59 PM, GodSands wrote:
"You cannot have heat with cold..."

Sorry I meant, "You cannot have heat without cold..."

That should be the reverse. You can't have cold, without (knowledge of) heat.

But if the cold didn't exist, or if you had no knowledge of what cold is, then you wouldn't know what heat is either, right? I mean, cold is an absense of heat, and heat is the absense of the cold. I think both ways work either way you say it.

Heat is energy (namely kenetic energy in particles). Cold is a lack of heat, used to describe the difference between high energy and low energy.

It's like rich and poor are used to describe differences in wealth. Being poor is really just a lack of wealth (subjective to the standards of that economy).

It wouldn't make sense to say, without the poor (the cold), there would be no wealth (the heat).

But without wealth (heat), there would be no poor (cold). Since without wealth, you wouldn't know what poor was.

Or, you can't have a broken heart without having it filled with love in the first place. Or various other metaphors.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
headphonegut
Posts: 4,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2011 6:49:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/14/2011 6:45:29 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 4/14/2011 6:35:42 PM, GodSands wrote:
At 4/14/2011 6:30:29 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 4/14/2011 5:50:59 PM, GodSands wrote:
"You cannot have heat with cold..."

Sorry I meant, "You cannot have heat without cold..."

That should be the reverse. You can't have cold, without (knowledge of) heat.

But if the cold didn't exist, or if you had no knowledge of what cold is, then you wouldn't know what heat is either, right? I mean, cold is an absense of heat, and heat is the absense of the cold. I think both ways work either way you say it.

Heat is energy (namely kenetic energy in particles). Cold is a lack of heat, used to describe the difference between high energy and low energy.

It's like rich and poor are used to describe differences in wealth. Being poor is really just a lack of wealth (subjective to the standards of that economy).

It wouldn't make sense to say, without the poor (the cold), there would be no wealth (the heat).

But without wealth (heat), there would be no poor (cold). Since without wealth, you wouldn't know what poor was.

Or, you can't have a broken heart without having it filled with love in the first place. Or various other metaphors.

ZOMG LOL for some reason this is funny or it's funny because that was his plan all along to be funny it's self evident I think
crying to soldiers coming home to their dogs why do I torment myself with these videos?
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,333
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2011 6:50:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/14/2011 6:45:29 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 4/14/2011 6:35:42 PM, GodSands wrote:
At 4/14/2011 6:30:29 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 4/14/2011 5:50:59 PM, GodSands wrote:
"You cannot have heat with cold..."

Sorry I meant, "You cannot have heat without cold..."

That should be the reverse. You can't have cold, without (knowledge of) heat.

But if the cold didn't exist, or if you had no knowledge of what cold is, then you wouldn't know what heat is either, right? I mean, cold is an absense of heat, and heat is the absense of the cold. I think both ways work either way you say it.

Heat is energy (namely kenetic energy in particles). Cold is a lack of heat, used to describe the difference between high energy and low energy.

It's like rich and poor are used to describe differences in wealth. Being poor is really just a lack of wealth (subjective to the standards of that economy).

It wouldn't make sense to say, without the poor (the cold), there would be no wealth (the heat).

But without wealth (heat), there would be no poor (cold). Since without wealth, you wouldn't know what poor was.

Or, you can't have a broken heart without having it filled with love in the first place. Or various other metaphors.

Actually without cold, heat means nothing except a variable describing energy states.

And a variable wouldn't have any meaning if you did not know what a constant was.

Sure you can define the terms but they have no value.
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2011 6:50:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/14/2011 6:45:29 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 4/14/2011 6:35:42 PM, GodSands wrote:
At 4/14/2011 6:30:29 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 4/14/2011 5:50:59 PM, GodSands wrote:
"You cannot have heat with cold..."

Sorry I meant, "You cannot have heat without cold..."

That should be the reverse. You can't have cold, without (knowledge of) heat.

But if the cold didn't exist, or if you had no knowledge of what cold is, then you wouldn't know what heat is either, right? I mean, cold is an absence of heat, and heat is the absence of the cold. I think both ways work either way you say it.

Heat is energy (namely kinetic energy in particles). Cold is a lack of heat, used to describe the difference between high energy and low energy.

It's like rich and poor are used to describe differences in wealth. Being poor is really just a lack of wealth (subjective to the standards of that economy).

It wouldn't make sense to say, without the poor (the cold), there would be no wealth (the heat).

But without wealth (heat), there would be no poor (cold). Since without wealth, you wouldn't know what poor was.

Or, you can't have a broken heart without having it filled with love in the first place. Or various other metaphors.

Your conclusion agrees with what I am said to begin with. You said that without wealth (heat) you couldn't know what being poor (cold) was or meant. But clearly this logically says also, that if there was no poor, you couldn't know what wealth was or what it meant.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2011 6:51:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/14/2011 6:45:29 PM, OreEle wrote:
But without wealth (heat), there would be no poor (cold). Since without wealth, you wouldn't know what poor was.

Why not? Sounds like a confusion of scale with relation. Changes in heat measured by temperature will simply give us a scale. X measurement is higher than Y measurement. To say it is hot is relative though - it is hot in relation to something else - that also doesn't require a concept of cold, simply one of less than.
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2011 6:53:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/14/2011 6:51:04 PM, Puck wrote:
At 4/14/2011 6:45:29 PM, OreEle wrote:
But without wealth (heat), there would be no poor (cold). Since without wealth, you wouldn't know what poor was.

Why not? Sounds like a confusion of scale with relation. Changes in heat measured by temperature will simply give us a scale. X measurement is higher than Y measurement. To say it is hot is relative though - it is hot in relation to something else - that also doesn't require a concept of cold, simply one of less than.

To get back onto the energy thing, we only know of energy because we know of a lack of energy also. For example hot water contains more energy than cold water.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,333
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2011 6:54:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/14/2011 6:51:04 PM, Puck wrote:
At 4/14/2011 6:45:29 PM, OreEle wrote:
But without wealth (heat), there would be no poor (cold). Since without wealth, you wouldn't know what poor was.

Why not? Sounds like a confusion of scale with relation. Changes in heat measured by temperature will simply give us a scale. X measurement is higher than Y measurement. To say it is hot is relative though - it is hot in relation to something else - that also doesn't require a concept of cold, simply one of less than.

Once you make relations of hotter or less hot, you have just made synonyms for cold.
headphonegut
Posts: 4,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2011 6:54:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/14/2011 6:51:04 PM, Puck wrote:
At 4/14/2011 6:45:29 PM, OreEle wrote:
But without wealth (heat), there would be no poor (cold). Since without wealth, you wouldn't know what poor was.

Why not? Sounds like a confusion of scale with relation. Changes in heat measured by temperature will simply give us a scale. X measurement is higher than Y measurement. To say it is hot is relative though - it is hot in relation to something else - that also doesn't require a concept of cold, simply one of less than.

in fact the word cold doesn't have to exist it could simply be there is less heat here or an abundance of heat there it's arbitrary but the word cold exists for practical purposes I won't be caught dead saying fvck it's less heated here
crying to soldiers coming home to their dogs why do I torment myself with these videos?
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2011 6:56:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/14/2011 6:53:46 PM, GodSands wrote:
To get back onto the energy thing, we only know of energy because we know of a lack of energy also. For example hot water contains more energy than cold water.

Um no. Energy is a measurement of something i.e., it is physically present, also, circular.
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2011 7:03:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/14/2011 6:56:03 PM, Puck wrote:
At 4/14/2011 6:53:46 PM, GodSands wrote:
To get back onto the energy thing, we only know of energy because we know of a lack of energy also. For example hot water contains more energy than cold water.

Um no. Energy is a measurement of something i.e., it is physically present, also, circular.

Yes I know, I agree with you. But to have a measurement of energy, you must have a lacking of energy to have a non-lacking amount of energy depending on what your using the energy for. For example; if I was to boil some water to a 100 degrees, it would become hotter, but it can only get hotter because it wasn't as hot (cold in comparison to fulfill the task the water is needed for) to begin with. If I were to leave the water to cool, it wouldn't say it was turning less hot, you would say it was turning cold.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2011 7:17:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/14/2011 6:23:44 PM, GodSands wrote:
At 4/14/2011 6:08:29 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
I'm saying that you are interpreting scripture incorrectly.

Certain scripture makes sense metaphorically if you compare it to your own inner psychology. If you examine yourself, and become aware of yourself, you see how it makes sense.

Try reading the New Testament with that type of mind set, and see how drastically different your interpretation is.

Yeah, ok, but how does what you just said, relate to what this forum says? And also, how often do you read the Bible?

It relates. A faulty or nonsensical interpretation is going to lead you to have faulty or nonsensical thoughts on the matter. Your understanding of God, Heaven, hell, etc. shows a fundamental misinterpretation.

Nowadays, I don't read the bible as much as I used to. I come from a long line of preachers, missionaries, and religious men. Some of the more historically noted, David Livingstone and Saint Moluag. Religion is something that has always been very important to my family(Nearly every one of my direct relatives is/was involved in some kind of ministry), so I spent a good deal of time studying the bible obsessively. Reading it every day. As I got older, my studies branched off into biblical linguistics, anthropology, and historical compilation. All the while, I kept reading the bible.

I can say with no hyperbole, that at one time I considered myself to be a biblical scholar.

I do not read the bible that much anymore(though I still take part in the occasional bible study), nor do I really care to anymore. I'm tired of reading it. I am of the opinion that it isn't an efficient means of delivering the message it is trying to get across. That, and it's too damn long.. Which only adds to its inefficiency, as few people in contemporary society are willing to seriously study something as large as the bible.

But I am not biblically ignorant, and I'd hope that some of the things I discuss pertaining to Christian theology would show this.

At 4/14/2011 6:28:53 PM, GodSands wrote:
At 4/14/2011 6:23:44 PM, GodSands wrote:
At 4/14/2011 6:08:29 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
I'm saying that you are interpreting scripture incorrectly.

Certain scripture makes sense metaphorically if you compare it to your own inner psychology. If you examine yourself, and become aware of yourself, you see how it makes sense.

Try reading the New Testament with that type of mind set, and see how drastically different your interpretation is.

By the way, I still don't get what you mean. You aren't being coherent at all.

Understand that things of the spiritual nature are things of the psychological nature. Spiritual texts describe the processes that go on in the mind. Thoughts, emotions, intent, and the consequences of not having those things in line with reality.. These are matters of the spirit. The spiritual is in your head, it is not outside your head.

Certain concepts in the bible, especially the New Testament bring light to the things that happen inside of your own head. When you become aware of the things that happen in your own head, this becomes more obvious.

A good way of making this more clear, if you want to go the biblical route.. Contemplate the book of proverbs. Do not use it to judge those around you, use it to become more aware of what you yourself are doing. Get understanding. Do not just follow advice, do not just obey rules, UNDERSTAND why something is considered foolish. Think about these things, and catch yourself when you do them.

Mindfulness and thinking deeply about these things will do wonders in your own self improvement. You will gain a greater understanding.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2011 7:29:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/14/2011 7:17:17 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 4/14/2011 6:23:44 PM, GodSands wrote:
At 4/14/2011 6:08:29 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
I'm saying that you are interpreting scripture incorrectly.

Certain scripture makes sense metaphorically if you compare it to your own inner psychology. If you examine yourself, and become aware of yourself, you see how it makes sense.

Try reading the New Testament with that type of mind set, and see how drastically different your interpretation is.

Yeah, ok, but how does what you just said, relate to what this forum says? And also, how often do you read the Bible?

It relates. A faulty or nonsensical interpretation is going to lead you to have faulty or nonsensical thoughts on the matter. Your understanding of God, Heaven, hell, etc. shows a fundamental misinterpretation.

Nowadays, I don't read the bible as much as I used to. I come from a long line of preachers, missionaries, and religious men. Some of the more historically noted, David Livingstone and Saint Moluag. Religion is something that has always been very important to my family(Nearly every one of my direct relatives is/was involved in some kind of ministry), so I spent a good deal of time studying the bible obsessively. Reading it every day. As I got older, my studies branched off into biblical linguistics, anthropology, and historical compilation. All the while, I kept reading the bible.

I can say with no hyperbole, that at one time I considered myself to be a biblical scholar.

I do not read the bible that much anymore(though I still take part in the occasional bible study), nor do I really care to anymore. I'm tired of reading it. I am of the opinion that it isn't an efficient means of delivering the message it is trying to get across. That, and it's too damn long.. Which only adds to its inefficiency, as few people in contemporary society are willing to seriously study something as large as the bible.

But I am not biblically ignorant, and I'd hope that some of the things I discuss pertaining to Christian theology would show this.

At 4/14/2011 6:28:53 PM, GodSands wrote:
At 4/14/2011 6:23:44 PM, GodSands wrote:
At 4/14/2011 6:08:29 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
I'm saying that you are interpreting scripture incorrectly.

Certain scripture makes sense metaphorically if you compare it to your own inner psychology. If you examine yourself, and become aware of yourself, you see how it makes sense.

Try reading the New Testament with that type of mind set, and see how drastically different your interpretation is.

By the way, I still don't get what you mean. You aren't being coherent at all.


Understand that things of the spiritual nature are things of the psychological nature. Spiritual texts describe the processes that go on in the mind. Thoughts, emotions, intent, and the consequences of not having those things in line with reality.. These are matters of the spirit. The spiritual is in your head, it is not outside your head.


Certain concepts in the bible, especially the New Testament bring light to the things that happen inside of your own head. When you become aware of the things that happen in your own head, this becomes more obvious.

A good way of making this more clear, if you want to go the biblical route.. Contemplate the book of proverbs. Do not use it to judge those around you, use it to become more aware of what you yourself are doing. Get understanding. Do not just follow advice, do not just obey rules, UNDERSTAND why something is considered foolish. Think about these things, and catch yourself when you do them.

Mindfulness and thinking deeply about these things will do wonders in your own self improvement. You will gain a greater understanding.

You still haven't explained what you are saying relates to the theology I presented.

"Your understanding of God, Heaven, hell, etc. shows a fundamental misinterpretation."

You haven't explained, you've just made an assertion. You have to explain why I have made a fundamental misinterpretation. You have yet to do so.

And to the rest of what you wrote, how is it relevant to this particular forum?
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2011 7:35:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Seek and you will find.

Holding your hand will not help you gain understanding.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2011 7:40:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/14/2011 7:35:50 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Seek and you will find.

Holding your hand will not help you gain understanding.

Please forgive me here, but are you trying to be some wise Buddhist?
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2011 2:18:09 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/14/2011 7:40:23 PM, GodSands wrote:
At 4/14/2011 7:35:50 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Seek and you will find.

Holding your hand will not help you gain understanding.

Please forgive me here, but are you trying to be some wise Buddhist?

Again, you look at me, and not the meaning of what I say.

You're a complete dipsh!t.

Would a wise buddhist tell you that, or would they make you do a bunch of stupid sh!t until you yourself realized that you are in fact a complete dipsh!t?

I'm clearly a buffoon. Go gobble down some hot coals.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp