Total Posts:46|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Finding a broader perspective on faith

secretsofthemind
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2012 12:00:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I was wondering where or how everyone else informed their opinion regarding faith. I am for lack of a clearer definition an agnostic and have attempted to find valid opinions in the hopes of maybe pushing myself in one direction or the other. Everywhere I look there is dogmatic logic and horrendous diatribe to wade through. There has been the occasional gem of intrigue and wisdom such as http://verbaldegustration.tumblr.com... but as I inferred, these voices are few and far between.

So again, where, how, with whom do you form your opinions of faith?
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2012 7:41:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/12/2012 12:00:56 AM, secretsofthemind wrote:
I was wondering where or how everyone else informed their opinion regarding faith. I am for lack of a clearer definition an agnostic and have attempted to find valid opinions in the hopes of maybe pushing myself in one direction or the other. Everywhere I look there is dogmatic logic and horrendous diatribe to wade through. There has been the occasional gem of intrigue and wisdom such as http://verbaldegustration.tumblr.com... but as I inferred, these voices are few and far between.

So again, where, how, with whom do you form your opinions of faith?

You can"t look to others to find what we are looking for because those who have found it can"t impart it to you, nobody can. The problem is that finding meaning is a supremely personal thing, to quote Cat Stevens, "Life is like a maze of doors and they all, open from the side you"re on." We are left with only the hope that maybe we can find it inside ourselves.

So the answer to your questions is that you must "Listen to the voice within".

That voice is our soul, and it speaks back to us with awe and a sense of belonging. The energy within is not quantifiable, you cannot measure and weigh things to discern the truth you are looking for. The truth we are all looking for, the ultimate truth, the absolute truth we speak of, is something we already have; but it resides deep within us, below the level of language. It is not imposed from outside, it's not something someone can simply tell you, it is something that resonates from within. You won"t find it by talking, nobody can tell it to you, you will only find it in silence, be still, and quietly listen for that still small voice that speaks from within.

And recognize also, that you find what you look for, so look carefully.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
DanielChristopherBlowes
Posts: 1,066
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2012 8:30:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/12/2012 12:00:56 AM, secretsofthemind wrote:
I was wondering where or how everyone else informed their opinion regarding faith. I am for lack of a clearer definition an agnostic and have attempted to find valid opinions in the hopes of maybe pushing myself in one direction or the other. Everywhere I look there is dogmatic logic and horrendous diatribe to wade through. There has been the occasional gem of intrigue and wisdom such as http://verbaldegustration.tumblr.com... but as I inferred, these voices are few and far between.

So again, where, how, with whom do you form your opinions of faith?

Direct personal revelation from Jesus Christ..
Everyone on the side of Truth listens to Me. (Jesus Christ)
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2012 12:14:21 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/12/2012 12:00:56 AM, secretsofthemind wrote:
I was wondering where or how everyone else informed their opinion regarding faith. I am for lack of a clearer definition an agnostic and have attempted to find valid opinions in the hopes of maybe pushing myself in one direction or the other. Everywhere I look there is dogmatic logic and horrendous diatribe to wade through. There has been the occasional gem of intrigue and wisdom such as http://verbaldegustration.tumblr.com... but as I inferred, these voices are few and far between.

So again, where, how, with whom do you form your opinions of faith?

I form my opinions of faith from the Catholic Church.

But it's probably too dogmatic for you.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2012 7:52:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I might commend to you the New Testament since I believe that the word of God - the Bible - stands as confirmed, complete, and authoritative.

If one believes the Bible to be lacking, insufficient, incomplete - falling short in some way - then he will recommend (he'll have to recommend) following something more, whether some vague "feeling", some inexplicable "experience", some religious group, something.

Those would be the two schools of thought. Personally, I prefer the former. I find the latter to be ..... well .... silly. But I'm sure some find my total reliance upon Biblical revelation as 'silly', too, so there ya are.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2012 9:23:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/12/2012 12:00:56 AM, secretsofthemind wrote:
I was wondering where or how everyone else informed their opinion regarding faith. I am for lack of a clearer definition an agnostic and have attempted to find valid opinions in the hopes of maybe pushing myself in one direction or the other. Everywhere I look there is dogmatic logic and horrendous diatribe to wade through. There has been the occasional gem of intrigue and wisdom such as http://verbaldegustration.tumblr.com... but as I inferred, these voices are few and far between.

So again, where, how, with whom do you form your opinions of faith?

i like you
signature
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2012 9:24:50 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/13/2012 7:52:20 AM, annanicole wrote:
I might commend to you the New Testament since I believe that the word of God - the Bible

Hahahahaha.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2012 9:35:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Instead of going to people for answers, go to their source of faith.

If you're interested in Christianity read the Bible.
If you're interested in Islam read the Quran.
If you're interested in Buddhism read the Tenants of Faith (or whatever it's called.)
etc etc

Then if something intrigues you go deeper and find more reference material to go on.

People are never a very good source of info when it comes to faith. They're so excited to convert you on the spot that they usually push you away.
truthseeker613
Posts: 464
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2012 10:48:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/12/2012 12:00:56 AM, secretsofthemind wrote:
I was wondering where or how everyone else informed their opinion regarding faith. I am for lack of a clearer definition an agnostic and have attempted to find valid opinions in the hopes of maybe pushing myself in one direction or the other. Everywhere I look there is dogmatic logic and horrendous diatribe to wade through. There has been the occasional gem of intrigue and wisdom such as http://verbaldegustration.tumblr.com... but as I inferred, these voices are few and far between.

So again, where, how, with whom do you form your opinions of faith?

1) Why do we believe anything that we believe?

Almost all that we believe come from:
a) 1st hand knowledge.
b) Hearing from someone reliable that you trust.
Being that (almost) no one today has 1st hand knowledge, most believers believe because that"s what those they trust told them.

This is not as irrational as it may sound. Most of what we know we know from others; news, history, science, nutrition, etc. We don't need to do the testing or research to believe the facts. We can and do know by listening to those we trust.

As a Jew, I & millions of other Jews have a direct link, parent to child, & teacher to student, for thousands of years, going back to the revelation of god at Mount Sinai.
Everyone tells their children and students about the event at Sinai. This has been going on for thousands of years.
Here is one such chain http://www.simpletoremember.com...

It's more than that though; all other religions are started by a revelation to a few people, think Mohammad, Jesus, Paul, Joseph Smith Jr., Guy Ballard, etc.
(See http://www.simpletoremember.com...)
Judaism is the only religion that was started with a national revelation.

Why is this significant?

If the religion is started by a revelation to one person there are 3 possibilities:
a) He lied
b) He is psychotic
c) He is legitimist

When a religion is based on a national revelation, the 1st 2 possibilities are eliminated.

Thus we are left with possibility #3 which is that the revelation is legitimist.

How could Judaism have gotten started any other way?
A person can convince others that he had a personal vision, but one can"t convince a large group of people, that they (i.e. the people) had a collective experience, if it never really happened.

You can see this argument in extended form at:
http://www.simpletoremember.com...
http://www.simpletoremember.com...
http://www.simpletoremember.com...
http://ohr.edu...

This is one of many arguments for Judaism.

2) Then there are bible codes, I know a lot of people, even believing Jews don't like them, and I agree some are farfetched. But some of them are just too incredible.

Here is one of the most famous ones:

Everyone is familiar with the Purim story / the book of ester. In which a Jewish woman saves the Jewish people from annihilation. At the end of the story the 10 sons of Haman (the antagonist) are hung. In listing the names there are 3 letters that are written small according to tradition, no reason is given for this tradition, see http://kad.biblecommenter.com... Esther 9:7-10.

In 1946, 10 high ranking Nazis were hanged.
The Small letters are ת, שׁ, and ז, Rabbi Weissmandl pointed out that if you combine the three small letters together they form the word תשז, which in the accepted Hebrew notation for year numbers (using Gematria) corresponds to the Jewish year [5]707 Anno Mundi,[61] which is the Jewish year that the 10 Nazi leaders were executed (October 16, 1946 corresponds to Tishrei 21, 5707, the day known as Hoshanna Rabba, the day of severe judgments for the nations of the world, according to the Jewish calendar). http://en.wikipedia.org...

This is where Wikipedia ends, but there is more.
Originally there were 23 on trial, 11 were sentenced to hanging.
A few hours before the hanging, G"ring committed suicide, reducing the final # to 10.

If that's not enough, here's the really freaky part:
Julius Streicher, was one of those who were hanged. Let me quote for you a description of the hanging from an eye witness:

Kingsbury Smith. "Nuremberg News Article Oct. 16, 1946 " The Execution of Nazi War Criminals". University of Missouri-Kansas City.

"Julius Streicher made his melodramatic appearance at 2:12 a.m.

While his manacles were being removed and his bare hands bound, this ugly, dwarfish little man, wearing a threadbare suit and a well-worn bluish shirt buttoned to the neck but without a tie (he was notorious during his days of power for his flashy dress), glanced at the three wooden scaffolds rising menacingly in front of him. Then he glanced around the room, his eyes resting momentarily upon the small group of witnesses. By this time, his hands were tied securely behind his back. Two guards, one on each arm, directed him to Number One gallows on the left of the entrance. He walked steadily the six feet to the first wooden step but his face was twitching.

As the guards stopped him at the bottom of the steps for identification formality he uttered his piercing scream: 'Heil Hitler!'

The shriek sent a shiver down my back.

As its echo died away an American colonel standing by the steps said sharply, 'Ask the man his name.' In response to the interpreter's query Streicher shouted, 'You know my name well.'

The interpreter repeated his request and the condemned man yelled, 'Julius Streicher.'

As he reached the platform, Streicher cried out, 'Now it goes to God.' He was pushed the last two steps to the mortal spot beneath the hangman's rope. The rope was being held back against a wooden rail by the hangman.

Streicher was swung suddenly to face the witnesses and glared at them. Suddenly he screamed, 'Purim Fest 1946.' [Purim is a Jewish holiday celebrated in the spring, commemorating the execution of Haman, ancient persecutor of the Jews described in the Old Testament.]" "
http://en.wikipedia.org...

That is something I cannot ignore.

Here's another one:
This one is found in Benjamin Blech's "If god is good why is the world so bad?":

The author was in conversation with a mystic (BTW, most mystics, if not all, are fake, especially the ones who claim to be mystics, a real mystic would not reveal that he is a mystic. this is not the point thou.)

The mystic mentioned that he has a tradition that every verse in the bible corresponds to the years of history. Every major event of all time will have some illusion to it, direct or indirect.

The state of Israel was declared in 1948 which according to the Jewish calendar corresponds to the year 5,708.
Do you know what the 5,708th verse is?
Deuteronomy 30:3:
"Then the LORD your God will restore you from captivity, and have compassion on you, and will gather you again from all the peoples where the LORD your God has scattered you."

It was amazing to, good to be true, writes Blech. Perhaps it was just a remarkable coincident one of those accidents that are more entertaining than instructive. But it was certainly intriguing: The one verse that speaks of return to the land after centuries of exile is actually the very same # Biblical sentence as the year in which this unlikely event occurred!
The author then asked this man if so it should also work for the holocaust.
The man responded with a smile, "Try it yourself".
Counting the verses backward the verses corresponding to the years of the holocaust were
Those describing the punishment that would befall the Jews, for failure to serve god.
%100 Conclusive proof?
Maybe not. But it cannot be ignored, & should be taken into
http://www.nydailynews.com...

royalpaladin: I'd rather support people who kill spies than a nation that organizes assassination squads (Kidon) to illegally enter into other nations and kill anybody who is not a Zionist. Who knows when they'll kill me for the crime of not supporting Israel?

Koopin: LOL! I just imagine Royal sitting in here apartment at night, when suddenly she hears a man outside speaking Hebrew as sh
truthseeker613
Posts: 464
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2012 10:49:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
& should be taken into account.

3) Fulfilled prophesy regarding the Jewish people, with quotes to show the realization of these prophesies.

Survival of the Jew: I would like to open with a quote from mark twain in his work entitled "Concerning the Jew":
"If the statistics are right, the Jews constitute but one percent of the human race. It suggests a nebulous dim puff of star dust lost in the blaze of the Milky Way. Properly the Jew ought hardly to be heard of, but he is heard of, has always been heard of. He is as prominent on the planet as any other people, and his commercial importance is extravagantly out of proportion to the smallness of his bulk. His contributions to the world's list of great names in literature, science, art, music, finance, medicine, and abstruse learning are also away out of proportion to the weakness of his numbers. He has made a marvelous fight in the world, in all the ages; and has done it with his hands tied behind him. He could be vain of himself, and be excused for it. The Egyptian, the Babylonian, and the Persian rose, filled the planet with sound and splendor, then faded to dream-stuff and passed away; the Greek and the Roman followed, and made a vast noise, and they are gone; other peoples have sprung up and held their torch high for a time, but it burned out, and they sit in twilight now, or have vanished. The Jew saw them all, beat them all, and is now what he always was, exhibiting no decadence, no infirmities of age, no weakening of his parts, no slowing of his energies, no dulling of his alert and aggressive mind. All things are mortal but the Jew; all other forces pass, but he remains. What is the secret of his immortality?"
We see from these quotes the impressive eternity of the Jew. This has been foretold in the bible Genesis 17:7, Malachi 3:6, Leviticus 5:18, Jeremiah 5:18.

The "Jews will/should be a light unto the nations" was foretold in Isaiah 42:6 end, ibid.60:3 genesis 12:2, 3.
For the next quotes I give credit to simpletoremember.com:
"I will insist the Hebrews have [contributed] more to civilize men than any other nation. If I was an atheist and believed in blind eternal fate, I should still believe that fate had ordained the Jews to be the most essential instrument for civilizing the nations ... They are the most glorious nation that ever inhabited this Earth. The Romans and their empire were but a bubble in comparison to the Jews. They have given religion to three-quarters of the globe..."
- John Adams, Second President of the United States
(From a letter to F. A. Van der Kemp [Feb. 16, 1808] Pennsylvania Historical Society)
"If we were forced to choose just one, there would be no way to deny that Judaism is the most important intellectual development in human history."
- David Gelernter, Yale University Professor
"Some people like the Jews, and some do not. But no thoughtful man can deny the fact that they are, beyond any question, the most formidable and the most remarkable race which has appeared in the world."
- Winston Churchill - Prime Minister of Great Britain
The "Jews will/should be a light unto the nations" was foretold in Isaiah 42:6 end, ibid.60:3 genesis 12:2, 3.

Next is the correlation between fertility of the land of Israel and its inhabitation of the Jews.
Again I quote mark twain I don't have space to quote it in its entirety so the reader is encouraged to look it up "Innocent Abroad or the new pilgrim's progress", vol.2 pp.216-359. Mark Twain wrights of the desolation and unsuitability of the holy land. As we see today the land of Israel is now an agricultural land following the return of the Jews. The sources for this prophesy are Leviticus 26:32, 33 duteronamy29:21, 22 Jerimia9:10 Ezekiel33:28, 29 all predict the desolation of the land. The return is predicted in Deuteronomy 30:3-5 and its following inhabitation and fertilization in Ezekiel36:8-11. We see here the prediction and realization of the Jews miraculous return followed by the lands mysterious revitalization.
There are other examples. See what professor Gottlieb considers to be the prime example: http://ohr.edu...

4) Then there is archaeological evidence:
http://ohr.edu...
5) & finally the argument from Jewish survival:
http://ohr.edu...
http://www.nydailynews.com...

royalpaladin: I'd rather support people who kill spies than a nation that organizes assassination squads (Kidon) to illegally enter into other nations and kill anybody who is not a Zionist. Who knows when they'll kill me for the crime of not supporting Israel?

Koopin: LOL! I just imagine Royal sitting in here apartment at night, when suddenly she hears a man outside speaking Hebrew as sh
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2012 3:58:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/13/2012 9:24:50 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 11/13/2012 7:52:20 AM, annanicole wrote:
I might commend to you the New Testament since I believe that the word of God - the Bible

Hahahahaha.

Hahahahahaha.

And you with your insistence upon calling things by 'Bible names'.

Hahahahahahaha.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2012 4:35:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/13/2012 3:58:38 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 11/13/2012 9:24:50 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 11/13/2012 7:52:20 AM, annanicole wrote:
I might commend to you the New Testament since I believe that the word of God - the Bible

Hahahahaha.

Hahahahahaha.

And you with your insistence upon calling things by 'Bible names'.

Hahahahahahaha.

Yes, in the interest of unity. It was one thing upon which we can all unite.

"If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God" (I Pet 4: 11)

Let's do that. At least we'll all the using the same words in the same ways from the same source. To do otherwise is the theological equivalent of the Tower of Babel. Course you noticed Dogknox - Mr. Christians believe the scriptures - wouldn't do it, but he is excused on the grounds of mental incompetence.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2012 12:33:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/13/2012 4:35:41 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/13/2012 3:58:38 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 11/13/2012 9:24:50 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 11/13/2012 7:52:20 AM, annanicole wrote:
I might commend to you the New Testament since I believe that the word of God - the Bible

Hahahahaha.

Hahahahahaha.

And you with your insistence upon calling things by 'Bible names'.

Hahahahahahaha.

Yes, in the interest of unity. It was one thing upon which we can all unite.

"If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God" (I Pet 4: 11)

Let's do that. At least we'll all the using the same words in the same ways from the same source. To do otherwise is the theological equivalent of the Tower of Babel. Course you noticed Dogknox - Mr. Christians believe the scriptures - wouldn't do it, but he is excused on the grounds of mental incompetence.

The Bible isn't called the word of God.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2012 1:08:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/14/2012 12:33:54 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 11/13/2012 4:35:41 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/13/2012 3:58:38 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 11/13/2012 9:24:50 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 11/13/2012 7:52:20 AM, annanicole wrote:
I might commend to you the New Testament since I believe that the word of God - the Bible

Hahahahaha.

Hahahahahaha.

And you with your insistence upon calling things by 'Bible names'.

Hahahahahahaha.

Yes, in the interest of unity. It was one thing upon which we can all unite.

"If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God" (I Pet 4: 11)

Let's do that. At least we'll all the using the same words in the same ways from the same source. To do otherwise is the theological equivalent of the Tower of Babel. Course you noticed Dogknox - Mr. Christians believe the scriptures - wouldn't do it, but he is excused on the grounds of mental incompetence.

The Bible isn't called the word of God.

Yes it is.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2012 1:24:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/14/2012 1:08:44 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/14/2012 12:33:54 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 11/13/2012 4:35:41 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/13/2012 3:58:38 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 11/13/2012 9:24:50 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 11/13/2012 7:52:20 AM, annanicole wrote:
I might commend to you the New Testament since I believe that the word of God - the Bible

Hahahahaha.

Hahahahahaha.

And you with your insistence upon calling things by 'Bible names'.

Hahahahahahaha.

Yes, in the interest of unity. It was one thing upon which we can all unite.

"If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God" (I Pet 4: 11)

Let's do that. At least we'll all the using the same words in the same ways from the same source. To do otherwise is the theological equivalent of the Tower of Babel. Course you noticed Dogknox - Mr. Christians believe the scriptures - wouldn't do it, but he is excused on the grounds of mental incompetence.

The Bible isn't called the word of God.

Yes it is.

No it's not.

And even if it was, you should probably call it 'The Scriptures'.

Even if it was called the word of God, that would by far be a minority usage in comparison with 'The Scriptures'.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2012 7:25:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/14/2012 1:24:09 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 11/14/2012 1:08:44 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/14/2012 12:33:54 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 11/13/2012 4:35:41 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/13/2012 3:58:38 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 11/13/2012 9:24:50 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 11/13/2012 7:52:20 AM, annanicole wrote:
I might commend to you the New Testament since I believe that the word of God - the Bible

Hahahahaha.

Hahahahahaha.

And you with your insistence upon calling things by 'Bible names'.

Hahahahahahaha.

Yes, in the interest of unity. It was one thing upon which we can all unite.

"If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God" (I Pet 4: 11)

Let's do that. At least we'll all the using the same words in the same ways from the same source. To do otherwise is the theological equivalent of the Tower of Babel. Course you noticed Dogknox - Mr. Christians believe the scriptures - wouldn't do it, but he is excused on the grounds of mental incompetence.

The Bible isn't called the word of God.

Yes it is.

No it's not.

And even if it was, you should probably call it 'The Scriptures'.

Even if it was called the word of God, that would by far be a minority usage in comparison with 'The Scriptures'.

Yes it is
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2012 7:27:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/14/2012 7:25:13 AM, annanicole wrote:
Yes it is

No it's not.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2012 11:20:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/14/2012 7:27:14 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 11/14/2012 7:25:13 AM, annanicole wrote:
Yes it is

No it's not.

Y'all argue over the most ridiculous things haha
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2012 11:22:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I just finished reading The Righteous Mind, by Jonathan Haight, which I highly recommend.

http://www.amazon.com...

The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion

Box copy:

"Why can"t our political leaders work together as threats loom and problems mount? Why do people so readily assume the worst about the motives of their fellow citizens? In The Righteous Mind, social psychologist Jonathan Haidt explores the origins of our divisions and points the way forward to mutual understanding.

His starting point is moral intuition"the nearly instantaneous perceptions we all have about other people and the things they do. These intuitions feel like self-evident truths, making us righteously certain that those who see things differently are wrong. Haidt shows us how these intuitions differ across cultures, including the cultures of the political left and right. He blends his own research findings with those of anthropologists, historians, and other psychologists to draw a map of the moral domain, and he explains why conservatives can navigate that map more skillfully than can liberals. He then examines the origins of morality, overturning the view that evolution made us fundamentally selfish creatures. But rather than arguing that we are innately altruistic, he makes a more subtle claim"that we are fundamentally groupish. It is our groupishness, he explains, that leads to our greatest joys, our religious divisions, and our political affiliations. In a stunning final chapter on ideology and civility, Haidt shows what each side is right about, and why we need the insights of liberals, conservatives, and libertarians to flourish as a nation."
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2012 11:25:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/14/2012 7:27:14 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 11/14/2012 7:25:13 AM, annanicole wrote:
Yes it is

No it's not.

Technically it is. But since you're Catholic you don't really respect the Bible as much as other Christians. Catholicism never has.
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2012 11:29:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/14/2012 11:25:13 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 11/14/2012 7:27:14 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 11/14/2012 7:25:13 AM, annanicole wrote:
Yes it is

No it's not.

Technically it is. But since you're Catholic you don't really respect the Bible as much as other Christians. Catholicism never has.

Technically it "is" what?

Called the word of God? Not by itself it's not.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2012 11:33:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/14/2012 11:29:23 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 11/14/2012 11:25:13 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 11/14/2012 7:27:14 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 11/14/2012 7:25:13 AM, annanicole wrote:
Yes it is

No it's not.

Technically it is. But since you're Catholic you don't really respect the Bible as much as other Christians. Catholicism never has.

Technically it "is" what?

Called the word of God? Not by itself it's not.

Protestants call it the Word of God.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2012 11:35:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/14/2012 11:33:05 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 11/14/2012 11:29:23 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 11/14/2012 11:25:13 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 11/14/2012 7:27:14 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 11/14/2012 7:25:13 AM, annanicole wrote:
Yes it is

No it's not.

Technically it is. But since you're Catholic you don't really respect the Bible as much as other Christians. Catholicism never has.

Technically it "is" what?

Called the word of God? Not by itself it's not.

Protestants call it the Word of God.

I call Jesus the Word, and that became Flesh. Not paper.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2012 11:36:12 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/14/2012 11:33:05 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Protestants call it the Word of God.

Hurrah for them. Annanicole has some strange fixation for only calling things by Biblical terms, however, so I was merely pointing out that the Bible does not call itself the word of God.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2012 12:22:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/14/2012 11:36:12 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 11/14/2012 11:33:05 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Protestants call it the Word of God.

Hurrah for them. Annanicole has some strange fixation for only calling things by Biblical terms, however, so I was merely pointing out that the Bible does not call itself the word of God.

Ah, well then no you're right in that the Bible does not say "This book is specifically called the 'Word of God'" no.
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2012 12:24:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/14/2012 12:22:11 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Ah, well then no you're right in that the Bible does not say "This book is specifically called the 'Word of God'" no.

That I am. It is also poor terminology to call the Bible the word of God, because it leads to superfluous confusion in passages like Hebrews 4:12.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2012 12:30:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/14/2012 11:36:12 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 11/14/2012 11:33:05 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Protestants call it the Word of God.

Hurrah for them. Annanicole has some strange fixation for only calling things by Biblical terms, however, so I was merely pointing out that the Bible does not call itself the word of God.

Oh, I was just messing with you (partly). But certainly it will be very productive if we'll use Biblical or scriptural terms to express Biblical or scriptural ideas. That's not exactly a "strange fixation." It becomes "strange" when people simply, for unknown reasons, simply flat-out refuse to do it.

Certainly I was and am aware that the Bible does not call itself anything. I never said it did, except in jest. You know, and you understand, precisely what I mean.

I am saying that when we talk about the Lord's Supper (I Cor 11: 20), we might just as well call it "communion" (I Cor 10: 16). Doesn't matter. There are probably a few other terms that are just as scriptural. When we speak of a follower of Christ, why, we could call him a Christian, a disciple, a saint, or any other acceptable and scripural appellation. What's the problem with that? That concept promotes unity and keeps everyone on the same page: I know exactly what someone else is talking about and vice versa. And it's so easy.

And here's an example of the reverse. Note the confusion. Is your priest a Baptist? Certainly he is, if he ever baptized anyone. That's what the word "Baptist" means. Was Paul a Baptist? Sure he was. He baptized people. Was Paul a Catholic? Sure he was, in the sense that he preached the universality of the church. How about Peter? Was he an elder or pastor? Sure he was. Was he a Baptist? Yep. Thus, Peter was a Baptist pastor. Certainly he was. Was he a Catholic? Yep, in the same sense that Paul was. You see the problem. It's two-fold: (1) referring to religious things using words that aren't even used in the scriptures and (2) using words in a manner that the scriptures never intended. I seek to avoid both of those errors.

It's the easiest concept in the world. It promotes unity. It makes discussion easier. It aids in opposing division. It keeps everyone on the same page, or close to it. Even poor Dogknox agreed to it, but ... alas and of course, he couldn't follow through with the concept. I, however, do try to adhere to it. That's exactly why I do not use the word "rapture", for instance.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2012 12:45:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/14/2012 12:24:40 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 11/14/2012 12:22:11 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Ah, well then no you're right in that the Bible does not say "This book is specifically called the 'Word of God'" no.

That I am. It is also poor terminology to call the Bible the word of God, because it leads to superfluous confusion in passages like Hebrews 4:12.

And there is no "superfluous confusion" in a passage like Hebrews 4: 12, unless someone tried to say that "For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword ..." is a reference to Jesus Christ Himself. I have heard the viewpoint expressed, rarely. I do not remember the specifics, but I do recall that without exception, the desire of such a commentator was to lessen the perceived effect of the written/spoken revelation of God. In the two or three instances that I recall, the fellow who said "the word of God" in Heb 4 means "Jesus Christ" believed in some other authority in the first place. I remember a Mormon trying to tell me that the "word of God" meant "Jesus." Why? Well, for one thing, he wanted to take the Bible, plus. He needed the scriptures, plus the hallucinations of Joseph Smith. Same with the Adventists: scriptures, plus the ramblings of Ellen White. Same with Christian Scientists: scriptures, plus Mary Baker Eddy's plagiarized nonsense. So they couldn't afford to place total reliance on the written/spoken/recorded word of God. No way. Every false teacher will do the same. But as I said, I've only encountered such a view a few times. If you do encounter it, watch out: whoever holds it is a-fixin' to have some additional revelation, some other authority, other than the scriptures. It's as predictable as the tides.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2012 12:59:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/14/2012 12:45:55 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/14/2012 12:24:40 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 11/14/2012 12:22:11 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Ah, well then no you're right in that the Bible does not say "This book is specifically called the 'Word of God'" no.

That I am. It is also poor terminology to call the Bible the word of God, because it leads to superfluous confusion in passages like Hebrews 4:12.

And there is no "superfluous confusion" in a passage like Hebrews 4: 12, unless someone tried to say that "For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword ..." is a reference to Jesus Christ Himself. I have heard the viewpoint expressed, rarely. I do not remember the specifics, but I do recall that without exception, the desire of such a commentator was to lessen the perceived effect of the written/spoken revelation of God. In the two or three instances that I recall, the fellow who said "the word of God" in Heb 4 means "Jesus Christ" believed in some other authority in the first place. I remember a Mormon trying to tell me that the "word of God" meant "Jesus." Why? Well, for one thing, he wanted to take the Bible, plus. He needed the scriptures, plus the hallucinations of Joseph Smith. Same with the Adventists: scriptures, plus the ramblings of Ellen White. Same with Christian Scientists: scriptures, plus Mary Baker Eddy's plagiarized nonsense. So they couldn't afford to place total reliance on the written/spoken/recorded word of God. No way. Every false teacher will do the same. But as I said, I've only encountered such a view a few times. If you do encounter it, watch out: whoever holds it is a-fixin' to have some additional revelation, some other authority, other than the scriptures. It's as predictable as the tides.

At 11/5/2012 10:27:19 PM, Malachi30 wrote:
The Bible itself is living and active(Hebrews 4:12) You can extract endless revelation of God out of one page of the Bible by the power of the Holy Spirit. To many people talk about the Bible and no little to nothing about what it actually claims about itself as well. Forming an argument can be found online if anyone would like to look it up. You build off of premises, then come to a conclusion based on these premises. Your argument is invalid based on the one premise you made because you don't know what the Bible claims about itself. (Endless Revelation Through God's Spirit guiding us) John 16:13

DACTMOTO tried something similar.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2012 1:09:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/14/2012 12:45:55 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/14/2012 12:24:40 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 11/14/2012 12:22:11 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Ah, well then no you're right in that the Bible does not say "This book is specifically called the 'Word of God'" no.

That I am. It is also poor terminology to call the Bible the word of God, because it leads to superfluous confusion in passages like Hebrews 4:12.

And there is no "superfluous confusion" in a passage like Hebrews 4: 12, unless someone tried to say that "For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword ..." is a reference to Jesus Christ Himself. I have heard the viewpoint expressed, rarely. I do not remember the specifics, but I do recall that without exception, the desire of such a commentator was to lessen the perceived effect of the written/spoken revelation of God. In the two or three instances that I recall, the fellow who said "the word of God" in Heb 4 means "Jesus Christ" believed in some other authority in the first place. I remember a Mormon trying to tell me that the "word of God" meant "Jesus." Why? Well, for one thing, he wanted to take the Bible, plus. He needed the scriptures, plus the hallucinations of Joseph Smith. Same with the Adventists: scriptures, plus the ramblings of Ellen White. Same with Christian Scientists: scriptures, plus Mary Baker Eddy's plagiarized nonsense. So they couldn't afford to place total reliance on the written/spoken/recorded word of God. No way. Every false teacher will do the same. But as I said, I've only encountered such a view a few times. If you do encounter it, watch out: whoever holds it is a-fixin' to have some additional revelation, some other authority, other than the scriptures. It's as predictable as the tides.

Waitwaitwait... are you saying that Hebrews 4:12 refers to... the Bible?
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13