[quote]Varqanir wrote:
“I came to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already set ablaze! Don’t assume that I came to bring peace on the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. The person who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; the person who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And whoever doesn’t take up his cross and follow Me is not worthy of me. Anyone finding his life will lose it, and anyone losing his life because of me will find it.”
That’s how you quote scripture.[/quote]
Actually:
â??Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.
(Matthew 10:34-39 ESV)
That’s how you do it, you list the book, chapter and verse so that others can look it up in context.[/quote]
this passage is obviously not referring to using swords to kill people,nor do violence to eachother.
[quote]pat wrote:
Dawkins is an asshat. Why bother posting a video of him, can you not think for yourself? This makes you look like a sheep, which is something I gather, you recoil at being an atheist and all. [/quote]
So,where are we so far? It seems to me the response to nonviolence has been,it doesn’t mean don’t be violent,it means don’t take revenge. Every scripture I gave has.been refuted with a word or 2, that means revenge,you should take advice from people who know what the scriptures mean,ie christians,because you don’t know the meaning,context,etc…of what you are saying.
What I have done is read the scripture and point out that many christians do not follow these words, as I said in the beginning. If you say,but those words don’t mean that,well are you sure that you don’t want them to mean that and are looking for ways around it??? If Christ says do violence to no man,but you want to be violent when you think its appropriate,then you had BETTER KNOW,that christ didn’t mean that.
Remember the one’s jesus seemed to despise? The religious teachers…why? the very one’s with all the UNDERSTANDING.TheY were leading the people to hell. Confusion
So,most christians defile the Sabbath. Most christian preacher teach tithing 10% of your earnings to the church. This is taught no where in the new testament,for the gentile christians. Is it ok to give 10% to the church? Of course! is it ok to teach that god commands it for new testament christians,no,because it is a lie. Confusion
yes. I am getting ready to crack beer #13. [/quote]
Yeah, but can you turn it into piss, like I can?![/quote]
That’s no miracle my friend! lol[/quote]
If the ordinary function of the reproductive system gets to be called a “miracle”, then I see no reason why the urinary system can’t be similarly honoured.
yes. I am getting ready to crack beer #13. [/quote]
Yeah, but can you turn it into piss, like I can?![/quote]
That’s no miracle my friend! lol[/quote]
If the ordinary function of the reproductive system gets to be called a “miracle”, then I see no reason why the urinary system can’t be similarly honoured.[/quote]
If you were a Christian,talk like that would be blasphemy:)
I see Push said that your beliefs are Pantheistic. I rarely see Panentheism mentioned, though to me it “makes more sense”. [/quote]
Pantheists don’t believe in a personal God. In fact, they don’t even believe that God is a being or entity. Pantheism is basically monism with God being everything. Spinoza was a pantheist and considered a heretic due to his beliefs. In fact, in the 18th Century calling someone a “Spinozaist” was an insult meaning they were a nihilist / atheist. I feel pretty confident none of this describes push. What made you think he was a pantheist?
Edit: sorry misread your post. You were talking a about varq. And it seems you’re talking about panentheism not pantheism. I should read comments more closely before I respond.
I see Push said that your beliefs are Pantheistic. I rarely see Panentheism mentioned, though to me it “makes more sense”. [/quote]
Yes. I would say that if you wanted to put a label on what I believe, panentheism comes pretty damn close. I suppose one could split hairs even further and say that it’s closer still to pandeism or even “panendeism” but whatever. I’ve never much liked labels.
EDIT: I just looked at what I wrote, and it seems terribly curt. Let me give you a more thoughtful reply after I’ve finished training and working. It’s a good question. And I agree, panentheism makes probably more sense than any other ontological philosophy I’ve looked at.
One could argue that, based on the way Obi-wan Kenobi described the Force, that the Jedi religion is panentheistic, too. Which would be pretty badass.
Well, I went back to page 37, but you asked several questions, so I am not sure which one you want an answer to. I will try if you can repeat it.[/quote]
I believe his question was about Christians not keeping the ten commandments, particularly the third (or fourth, depending how you count them): resting on the Sabbath and keeping it holy.
He wants to know why Christians observe Sunday, the first day of the week, as a holy day, rather than Saturday, which is the seventh.
You may provide your own answer, but it has always been my impression that Saturday was the holy day for Christians up until Emperor Constantine, a sun worshipper before his conversion to Christianity, made the prevalent holy day in the Eastern Empire at the time (“Sun Day”) into the Christian holy day.
[/quote]
Constantine made it official but Christians were observing the ‘Lord’s Day’ or Sunday, the first day of the week as a day for rest and prayer since Apostolic times. There are several reasons for this. One, and probably most importantly, it was the day of the Resurrection, hence was considered the ‘Lord’s Day’ and the most important day of the week for rest and prayer. Also, there was a deliberate attempt not to entangle the Christian tradition, with Jewish. Also, there was a deliberate attempt to take pagan traditions and transfer them in to Christian one. Presumably, so as to not change the culture and traditions of peoples, but to convert the nature of thee traditions from pagan to Christian.
We didn’t dispose with the 10 commandments, we changed the which day was the Sabbath for those and other reasons. Christians are not beholden to Mosaic law specifically. We adhere to the heart of the law rather than the letter of it.
Hence, we do observe the Sabbath but the Christian Sabbath is Sunday, not Saturday.
I see Push said that your beliefs are Pantheistic. I rarely see Panentheism mentioned, though to me it “makes more sense”. [/quote]
Pantheists don’t believe in a personal God. In fact, they don’t even believe that God is a being or entity. Pantheism is basically monism with God being everything. Spinoza was a pantheist and considered a heretic due to his beliefs. In fact, in the 18th Century calling someone a “Spinozaist” was an insult meaning they were a nihilist / atheist. I feel pretty confident none of this describes push. What made you think he was a pantheist?
Edit: sorry misread your post. You were talking a about varq. And it seems you’re talking about panentheism not pantheism. I should read comments more closely before I respond.[/quote]
From what I have read Spinoza seems to be Panentheistic.
" Though Spinoza has been called the “prophet” and "prince"of pantheism, in a letter to Henry Oldenburg Spinoza states that: "as to the view of certain people that I identify god with nature (taken as a kind of mass or corporeal matter), they are quite mistaken. For Spinoza, our universe (cosmos) is a mode under two attributes of Thought and Extension. God has infinitely many other attributes which are not present in our world. According to German philosopher Karl Jaspers, when Spinoza wrote “Deus sive Natura” (God or Nature) Spinoza did not mean to say that God and Nature are interchangeable terms, but rather that God’s transcendence was attested by his infinitely many attributes, and that two attributes known by humans, namely Thought and Extension, signified God’s immanence. "
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Your “religion,” as it were, is an old one. You do know that?
[/quote]
Oldest one there is, I’d say.[/quote]
Well, now I need to know…[/quote]
Funny you should put it thataway. God is unknowable.[/quote]
Fixed
[/quote]
Well, if you put it that way, nothing it knowable. You can be holding your favorite pencil and you don’t know everything about that pencil. You know things about that pencil, we know things about God.
Like anything else, God isn’t knowable, but He is searchable.[/quote]
Yes. Yes. Exactly. And that is the distinction I have been trying to draw: one may search for truth, (which one may refer to as god), but I would be extremely suspicious of any human being who claims to possess it.
[/quote]
The important distinction is if one who claims to posses it, are doing so as a manner of speaking, or literal possession.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
“I came to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already set ablaze! Don’t assume that I came to bring peace on the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. The person who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; the person who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And whoever doesn’t take up his cross and follow Me is not worthy of me. Anyone finding his life will lose it, and anyone losing his life because of me will find it.”
That’s how you quote scripture.[/quote]
Actually:
Ã?¢??Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.
(Matthew 10:34-39 ESV)
That’s how you do it, you list the book, chapter and verse so that others can look it up in context.[/quote]
this passage is obviously not referring to using swords to kill people,nor do violence to eachother.
[/quote]
We were just demonstrating the action of quoting scripture, not particularly picking a particular scripture.
yes. I am getting ready to crack beer #13. [/quote]
Yeah, but can you turn it into piss, like I can?![/quote]
That’s no miracle my friend! lol[/quote]
If the ordinary function of the reproductive system gets to be called a “miracle”, then I see no reason why the urinary system can’t be similarly honoured.[/quote]
I see Push said that your beliefs are Pantheistic. I rarely see Panentheism mentioned, though to me it “makes more sense”. [/quote]
Pantheists don’t believe in a personal God. In fact, they don’t even believe that God is a being or entity. Pantheism is basically monism with God being everything. Spinoza was a pantheist and considered a heretic due to his beliefs. In fact, in the 18th Century calling someone a “Spinozaist” was an insult meaning they were a nihilist / atheist. I feel pretty confident none of this describes push. What made you think he was a pantheist?
Edit: sorry misread your post. You were talking a about varq. And it seems you’re talking about panentheism not pantheism. I should read comments more closely before I respond.[/quote]
From what I have read Spinoza seems to be Panentheistic.
" Though Spinoza has been called the “prophet” and "prince"of pantheism, in a letter to Henry Oldenburg Spinoza states that: "as to the view of certain people that I identify god with nature (taken as a kind of mass or corporeal matter), they are quite mistaken. For Spinoza, our universe (cosmos) is a mode under two attributes of Thought and Extension. God has infinitely many other attributes which are not present in our world. According to German philosopher Karl Jaspers, when Spinoza wrote “Deus sive Natura” (God or Nature) Spinoza did not mean to say that God and Nature are interchangeable terms, but rather that God’s transcendence was attested by his infinitely many attributes, and that two attributes known by humans, namely Thought and Extension, signified God’s immanence. "
[/quote]
Okay, but his metaphysical system is nihilistic as Friedrich Jacobi said. He didn’t believe in a personal God.
