The Bible

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]cstratton2 wrote:
The bible which was written by second hand prophets… I find Jesus Christ to be a great example of a humanitarian, however alot seems to not sit right… The teaching is meant to dissolve oneself and see past conditioning, not to follow blindly to random scripture and text and call it truth through a pattern of the mind, theology and belief is just a mental mind construct. [/quote]

This is all wrong. I suspect you have not read the whole thing or know a great deal about biblical history. Jesus was not a humanitarian, he was the Christ. God incarnate in the flesh. Much more than a humanitarian and the depth and breath of his presence on Earth is still yet to be fully realized and understood.

82

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
King of out of left field, but I love reading psalms from a King James bible. The language in beautiful. [/quote]

It may be perhaps linguistically aesthetic, but the King James version has serious translation issues and hence I do not trust it for accuracy. [/quote]

Accuracy.
Word? Image? Understanding?

In one of his prefaces, Robert Alter speaks to the beauty of the KJV, principally because the committee did strive to mimic the music of the original. So much of the Hebrew original had been adopted into the KJV that one would think it was old and established English idiom.

But Alter is a literary critic and translator. His point is that the Hebrew is a compact language, and that the poetry of the Old Testament is one of parallelism of ideas, and not of sounds. And to a remarkable degree, he succeeds in his translations to transmit the power of the image and the metaphor, whereas other translations (English or not) seem flabby or confused.

I can tell you that I never understood Job so well, in the original or in translation, as from Alter’s stunning translation.[/quote]

I would agree that understanding is the most important take away and if the KJV did that for you, that’s awesome. But with regards to the accuracy of the text to the original Hebrew and Greek, the KJV has major errors. That doesn’t mean it’s not a useful spiritual tool, it just means that there are more faithful word for word translations, which the KJV is not. It’s a thought translation. I like the word for word translations. The ESV and NRSV are the gold standard in that respect.
Nobody is going to give perfect translation. The best is really to learn Hebrew and Greek and read it from there, but since I am not planning on doing that I rely on a proper scholarly word for word translation.
However, if you understand the word better from the KJV translation, then that’s the one you should use. Perhaps with a good study tool that addresses the translation errors in the notes so you have both sides.

83

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
King of out of left field, but I love reading psalms from a King James bible. The language in beautiful. [/quote]

It may be perhaps linguistically aesthetic, but the King James version has serious translation issues and hence I do not trust it for accuracy. [/quote]

Accuracy.
Word? Image? Understanding?

In one of his prefaces, Robert Alter speaks to the beauty of the KJV, principally because the committee did strive to mimic the music of the original. So much of the Hebrew original had been adopted into the KJV that one would think it was old and established English idiom.

But Alter is a literary critic and translator. His point is that the Hebrew is a compact language, and that the poetry of the Old Testament is one of parallelism of ideas, and not of sounds. And to a remarkable degree, he succeeds in his translations to transmit the power of the image and the metaphor, whereas other translations (English or not) seem flabby or confused.

I can tell you that I never understood Job so well, in the original or in translation, as from Alter’s stunning translation.[/quote]

I studied Job in depth some years ago. It would be interesting to hear your and Alter’s take on it.[/quote]

I lived Job for a few years… It sucked.

84

Do the people here interested in or otherwise committed to Christian theology believe that communion is communication?

85

[quote]TyroneSlothrop wrote:
Do the people here interested in or otherwise committed to Christian theology believe that communion is communication? [/quote]

No.

86

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]cstratton2 wrote:
The bible which was written by second hand prophets… I find Jesus Christ to be a great example of a humanitarian, however alot seems to not sit right… The teaching is meant to dissolve oneself and see past conditioning, not to follow blindly to random scripture and text and call it truth through a pattern of the mind, theology and belief is just a mental mind construct. [/quote]

This is all wrong. I suspect you have not read the whole thing or know a great deal about biblical history. Jesus was not a humanitarian, he was the Christ. God incarnate in the flesh. Much more than a humanitarian and the depth and breath of his presence on Earth is still yet to be fully realized and understood.[/quote]

I know he was much more then a kind person, I believe him to be highly awakened, on a spiritual level as well as many, many others but rather then make mental idols and seek salvation through them we should rely on ourselves. You don’t deepen you’re spiritual nature by just following texts as a product of the mind, or it becomes a theology and blind faith… The Indian sage Ramana Maharshi likened spiritual teachings to thorns used to remove other thorns. There is great insight in segments in the bible but it is never seemingly taught by most, such as In Matthew 16: 24, Jesus says: “If anyone wants to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me.” which can mean “When Jesus said ‘Deny thyself’, what he meant was: Negate (and thus undo) the illusion of self. If the self - the ego - were truly who I am, it would be absurd to ‘deny’ it. What remains is the light of consciousness in which perceptions, experiences, thoughts, and feelings come and go. That is Being, that is the deeper, true I.” It has nothing to do with idealogy, belief or religion, it is actually the removal of everything you were ever taught.

Also Jiddu Krishnamurtis qoute is quite interesting… There is no guide, no teacher, no authority. There is only you - your relationship with others and with the world - there is nothing else. When you realize this, it either brings great despair, from which comes cynicism and bitterness, or, in facing the fact that you and nobody else is responsible for the world and for yourself, for what you think, what you feel, how you act, all self-pity goes.

88

[quote]cstratton2 wrote:<<< I know he was much more then a kind person, >>>[/quote]YOU DO?!?!?!? Well isn’t that jist peachy keen. Look, I’m sure yer a hip n groovy kid, but stick to sages and gurus of which Jesus Christ was not one. Here is a post to another guy a while back that will save me some typing:

[quote]This book (Romans) is one of the toughest in the bible sometimes to interpret and admittedly this passage is probably not immediately self explanatory, but…
Romans 3:19-31 (ESV)

[quote]19-Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. 20-For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.

21-But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it 22-the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23-for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24-and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25-whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God?s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26-It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

27-Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28-For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. 29-Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30-since God is one who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. 31-Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.[/quote]
God simply forgiving sin, which in short, sin is to fail the standard of His law, would be the eternal divine equivalent of you simply looking the other way when your children ignore your rules. Only instead of being an attack on the authority of one man who is also sinful, sin against the Lord is an attack on the nature and authority of a blindingly pure, holy and JUST God. A God whose very purity, holiness and justice will not allow Him to simply wink at sin and say “awww, that’s ok, I know how ya’ll are chuckle chuckle!!!” No. His nature and justice demand satisfaction of the violation of His law.

That law was given after the entrance of sin into the world as a tutor to instruct man in his exceeding need of a remedy for his deplorable state of rebellion wherein he is incessantly attempting to run his own life and flipping God off.

This passage is lifted from it’s immediate context, to say nothing of the much larger one that flows through it. However, the short version is that NOBODY in their present state is capable of satisfying God’s perfect law perfectly and as the apostle James said, “For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it.” (James 2:10) Two important lessons are learned here. One, this explains how something so seemingly trivial as a bite from a piece of fruit in defiance of God’s command can bring eternal ruin to our entire specie. Two, it shuts up ALL men (and women) under sin seeing that even the most apparently good and moral among us are still guilty of eternal crimes and under the sentence of death.

Paul says in the passage above that redemption from this sin of ours is in Christ Jesus, who though Himself born under the law is the only specimen of our kind to avoid descension and hence corruption from Adam because God is His Father. Having then obeyed the law perfectly, He is thereby singularly qualified to make satisfaction before the Father on behalf of others. In this way the apostle says in verse 26, God is BOTH just and the justIFIER of those who avail themselves of this most merciful and gracious benefit which is acquired by faith in this Jesus who has died in their place. He is just because His law and it’s penalty have been upheld. He can then JUSTLY forgive those who call on Him by applying the satisfaction of Christ’s sacrifice to them…

Jesus of Nazareth, the man born God, satisfied the law on behalf of His elect by both obeying it for them and dying as if like them He hadn’t. Having therefore no sin of His own, death could not hold Him and when He rose again in victory over sin’s penalty, all those who had been given Him by the Father rose with Him. This is why at our church, make no mistake, we celebrate Jesus my dear friend. We have us one spirit filled hallelujah glory shoutin good time exalting and praising Him for His amazing grace indeed. Here’s a tip. He couldn’t care less that this highly offends you. For the record, He couldn’t have cared less when it highly offended me either.[/quote]

89

[quote]cstratton2 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]cstratton2 wrote:
The bible which was written by second hand prophets… I find Jesus Christ to be a great example of a humanitarian, however alot seems to not sit right… The teaching is meant to dissolve oneself and see past conditioning, not to follow blindly to random scripture and text and call it truth through a pattern of the mind, theology and belief is just a mental mind construct. [/quote]

This is all wrong. I suspect you have not read the whole thing or know a great deal about biblical history. Jesus was not a humanitarian, he was the Christ. God incarnate in the flesh. Much more than a humanitarian and the depth and breath of his presence on Earth is still yet to be fully realized and understood.[/quote]

I know he was much more then a kind person, I believe him to be highly awakened, on a spiritual level as well as many, many others but rather then make mental idols and seek salvation through them we should rely on ourselves.
[/quote]
Yeah, we see this all the time. It’s called secular humanism and the social despair it brings: fatherless children, abortion, broken families, crime, hatred, fear, misdirection, etc. Sounds way better than people trying to live a faithful life of peace and love and living for a higher purpose than one’s self.
What does ‘ourselves’ bring to the table other than rampant selfishness? I’ll take a neighbor ‘blindly’ trying to lead a life or faith and lover a selfish pig any day.

Incorrect. You do deepen your spiritual nature and self efficacy by reading those texts. The Bible is for man, not God. The more you learn about God, the more you know about yourself. By serving God, you become richer in every way as a person.

Perhaps your experience with Biblical faith is shallow, but for those who care to know, it is opened. And the depth and breadth of the Bible is taught. You cannot liken your lack of experience as the end all be all of Biblical spirituality.

It’s the denial of self, that shows you who you really are. The denial of self, is the removal of being self centered, for living for something more than yourself. But for the grace of God we are hopelessly insignificant.
In that one verse there is so much more than can be reasonably discussed.

Nothing else? Oh there is a great deal more. You don’t need to be some spiritual giant to realize that. Even in physics we know that even the most insignificant movement changes everything about the universe we know, and a great deal more that we don’t.

The problem with this train of thought is that even on it’s surface, is that the reasoning is circular. Things are not a function of themselves, it’s flat logically impossible for that to be so. Without even getting ‘spiritual’, we know deductively, that nothing is a function of itself.
There is never ‘nothing else’ there is always more.

90

[quote]cstratton2 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]cstratton2 wrote:
The bible which was written by second hand prophets… I find Jesus Christ to be a great example of a humanitarian, however alot seems to not sit right… The teaching is meant to dissolve oneself and see past conditioning, not to follow blindly to random scripture and text and call it truth through a pattern of the mind, theology and belief is just a mental mind construct. [/quote]

This is all wrong. I suspect you have not read the whole thing or know a great deal about biblical history. Jesus was not a humanitarian, he was the Christ. God incarnate in the flesh. Much more than a humanitarian and the depth and breath of his presence on Earth is still yet to be fully realized and understood.[/quote]

I know he was much more then a kind person, I believe him to be highly awakened, on a spiritual level as well as many, many others but rather then make mental idols and seek salvation through them we should rely on ourselves. You don’t deepen you’re spiritual nature by just following texts as a product of the mind, or it becomes a theology and blind faith… The Indian sage Ramana Maharshi likened spiritual teachings to thorns used to remove other thorns. There is great insight in segments in the bible but it is never seemingly taught by most, such as In Matthew 16: 24, Jesus says: “If anyone wants to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me.” which can mean “When Jesus said ‘Deny thyself’, what he meant was: Negate (and thus undo) the illusion of self. If the self - the ego - were truly who I am, it would be absurd to ‘deny’ it. What remains is the light of consciousness in which perceptions, experiences, thoughts, and feelings come and go. That is Being, that is the deeper, true I.” It has nothing to do with idealogy, belief or religion, it is actually the removal of everything you were ever taught.

Also Jiddu Krishnamurtis qoute is quite interesting… There is no guide, no teacher, no authority. There is only you - your relationship with others and with the world - there is nothing else. When you realize this, it either brings great despair, from which comes cynicism and bitterness, or, in facing the fact that you and nobody else is responsible for the world and for yourself, for what you think, what you feel, how you act, all self-pity goes.[/quote]

Pat my friend, this kind of syncretistic nonsense is exactly why I have argued so vehemently before against the notion of a singular religious consciousness underlying the various religions. As soon as you start saying that any religion that looks remotely like monotheism worships the same God (Islam, Christianity, and in your opinion, Hinduism), you open the door for this kind of ahistorical crap.

Cstratton2, you need to do some serious historical research, because you are doing a grave injustice to the teachings of Jesus by misrepresenting them so. He would not agree with ANY of the teachers you have listed. You clearly know nothing about his original historical context…

The phrase “deny yourself” CANNOT mean “negate the illusion of self.” The Greek verb aparneomai, when in the middle voice, is an idiom denoting, “act selflessly.” That’s all it means - it means to put others before yourself. Whoever you got that quote from should have consulted the Greek instead of a English translation, but then again, doing so would have destroyed the neat little syncretistic worldview he constructed, wouldn’t it?

Moreover, as I’ve tried to point out to JayPierce a million times, the whole notion
Also, this basic theological model that you are using, which George Lindbeck dubbed, “the experiential-expressivist,” has more holes in it than swiss cheese. It’s nonsensical; religions are not merely a hodgepodge of different symbols all referring to the same things, but are complex cultural-linguistic systems that render certain forms of experience possible.

91

The premise of what I am saying is most everything you all are saying was either taught or attained through memory and knowledge, but how about self inquiry? really going to the root of things, finding out whats really true rather then things learned second hand what do you know for absolute certain without qouting or running anywhere else?

The idea of civilization falling apart without religion and doing good through fear of punishment showcases this problem up and center… If one recognized life and everything as themself and them as everything they would not do anything in a way that doesn’t operate out of the deepest respect and love, But plenty of good religious valued people have killed others just because they don’t agree with their beliefs, the same goes for governing ideas like communism, or others… Any mind made structure or idea is imaginary and not real until actually proven through personal experience for that person themself. If one has inner peace and realizes they do not do harm to others without harming themselves and knows that good to others is good for them, why would they commit atrocities?

It was Jesus that once stated those that “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear” And never have I seen more violence commited on this planet then that caused by the separation of man from his fellow human through some belief or idea.

Ego is the problem, and the collective pain that comes with identifying with the thinking mind… The New Testament has very beautiful and inspiring words to see but it must be seen through the absolute, so does the Tao Te Ching, Bhagavad Gita, Buddhist Scriptures, but without eyes to see what the message is then all will be lost in thought.

the only way to experience life and god surrounding you and within you is in the present moment of no mind, past and future are a virtual reality and the thinking mind separates us from God, so throw it out.

92

Do yourself a favor and leave the bible out of your fantasies friend. It knows literally nothing of what you’re saying. It is the history of creation, sin and redemption as decreed by a very specific God who had no problem sending His servants like Joshua to exterminate whole civilizations of pagan peoples who were not privy to His very specific holy law. Big subjects people earn multiple degrees in. I say again. Believe what you want, but it has zero whatsoever to do with the bible.

93

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]cstratton2 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]cstratton2 wrote:
The bible which was written by second hand prophets… I find Jesus Christ to be a great example of a humanitarian, however alot seems to not sit right… The teaching is meant to dissolve oneself and see past conditioning, not to follow blindly to random scripture and text and call it truth through a pattern of the mind, theology and belief is just a mental mind construct. [/quote]

This is all wrong. I suspect you have not read the whole thing or know a great deal about biblical history. Jesus was not a humanitarian, he was the Christ. God incarnate in the flesh. Much more than a humanitarian and the depth and breath of his presence on Earth is still yet to be fully realized and understood.[/quote]

I know he was much more then a kind person, I believe him to be highly awakened, on a spiritual level as well as many, many others but rather then make mental idols and seek salvation through them we should rely on ourselves. You don’t deepen you’re spiritual nature by just following texts as a product of the mind, or it becomes a theology and blind faith… The Indian sage Ramana Maharshi likened spiritual teachings to thorns used to remove other thorns. There is great insight in segments in the bible but it is never seemingly taught by most, such as In Matthew 16: 24, Jesus says: “If anyone wants to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me.” which can mean “When Jesus said ‘Deny thyself’, what he meant was: Negate (and thus undo) the illusion of self. If the self - the ego - were truly who I am, it would be absurd to ‘deny’ it. What remains is the light of consciousness in which perceptions, experiences, thoughts, and feelings come and go. That is Being, that is the deeper, true I.” It has nothing to do with idealogy, belief or religion, it is actually the removal of everything you were ever taught.

Also Jiddu Krishnamurtis qoute is quite interesting… There is no guide, no teacher, no authority. There is only you - your relationship with others and with the world - there is nothing else. When you realize this, it either brings great despair, from which comes cynicism and bitterness, or, in facing the fact that you and nobody else is responsible for the world and for yourself, for what you think, what you feel, how you act, all self-pity goes.[/quote]

Pat my friend, this kind of syncretistic nonsense is exactly why I have argued so vehemently before against the notion of a singular religious consciousness underlying the various religions. As soon as you start saying that any religion that looks remotely like monotheism worships the same God (Islam, Christianity, and in your opinion, Hinduism), you open the door for this kind of ahistorical crap.
[/quote]
I didn’t mention anything of the sort. I am not sure why you brought this up?

[quote]
Cstratton2, you need to do some serious historical research, because you are doing a grave injustice to the teachings of Jesus by misrepresenting them so. He would not agree with ANY of the teachers you have listed. You clearly know nothing about his original historical context…

The phrase “deny yourself” CANNOT mean “negate the illusion of self.” The Greek verb aparneomai, when in the middle voice, is an idiom denoting, “act selflessly.” That’s all it means - it means to put others before yourself. Whoever you got that quote from should have consulted the Greek instead of a English translation, but then again, doing so would have destroyed the neat little syncretistic worldview he constructed, wouldn’t it?

Moreover, as I’ve tried to point out to JayPierce a million times, the whole notion
Also, this basic theological model that you are using, which George Lindbeck dubbed, “the experiential-expressivist,” has more holes in it than swiss cheese. It’s nonsensical; religions are not merely a hodgepodge of different symbols all referring to the same things, but are complex cultural-linguistic systems that render certain forms of experience possible.[/quote]

94

[quote]cstratton2 wrote:
The premise of what I am saying is most everything you all are saying was either taught or attained through memory and knowledge, but how about self inquiry? really going to the root of things, finding out whats really true rather then things learned second hand what do you know for absolute certain without qouting or running anywhere else?
[/quote]
You were making assumptions that this was not done. Self reflection and study is part and parcel to the Christian experience.
Indeed, one cannot ‘love their neighbor as themselves’ if one does not dig into one’s self and attain some degree of self knowledge.

Those who do evil and/ or defend evil are not living or trying to live a Biblical or Christian life. They are indeed violating the Christian tenets. One who does evil in the name of God is acting particularly egregious. So they may talk the talk, but they are not walking the walk. Saying and doing are two different things. Doing evil even to attain good, is not a Christian tenet.
That’s not the same as saying we don’t all make mistakes. The difference lies in what you do after. If you repent and try to improve, that’s Christian. If you don’t care or don’t try to improve, that is not.

Well that is just a history fail. The greatest violence and murders were committed by atheists. There is simply no way around this fact. Further, most wars in history were not religious wars. Religiously based wars seem to get a disproportionate amount of attention. Most wars were about land and money, not religion.

[quote]

Ego is the problem, and the collective pain that comes with identifying with the thinking mind… The New Testament has very beautiful and inspiring words to see but it must be seen through the absolute, so does the Tao Te Ching, Bhagavad Gita, Buddhist Scriptures, but without eyes to see what the message is then all will be lost in thought.

the only way to experience life and god surrounding you and within you is in the present moment of no mind, past and future are a virtual reality and the thinking mind separates us from God, so throw it out. [/quote]

If the thinking mind separates you from God, your thinking is errored, and if not errored, then shallow at the least.

95

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]cstratton2 wrote:
The bible which was written by second hand prophets… I find Jesus Christ to be a great example of a humanitarian, however alot seems to not sit right… The teaching is meant to dissolve oneself and see past conditioning, not to follow blindly to random scripture and text and call it truth through a pattern of the mind, theology and belief is just a mental mind construct. [/quote]

This is all wrong. I suspect you have not read the whole thing or know a great deal about biblical history. Jesus was not a humanitarian, he was the Christ. God incarnate in the flesh. Much more than a humanitarian and the depth and breath of his presence on Earth is still yet to be fully realized and understood.[/quote]

Precisely. And people who see Jesus as simply a good guy, a humanitarian perhaps, are absolutely clueless to the fact that when he returns he will kill millions of people when he returns. He has every right, for he is God. That will be the side of Jesus we will be frightened to see.

96

[quote]pat wrote:[quote]KingKai25 wrote:Pat my friend, this kind of syncretistic nonsense is exactly why I have argued so vehemently before against the notion of a singular religious consciousness underlying the various religions. As soon as you start saying that any religion that looks remotely like monotheism worships the same God (Islam, Christianity, and in your opinion, Hinduism), you open the door for this kind of ahistorical crap.
[/quote]I didn’t mention anything of the sort. I am not sure why you brought this up?[/quote]His most royal majestic graciousness is of course free to correct this simple plebe if I am wrong, but he is saying that his PAST rejection of your sometimes syncretistic tendencies have been motivated, in addition to the declarations of the texts themselves, also as a safeguard against just such wide open Unitarianism as is here being advanced by our new young, progressive and open minded friend cstratton2.

In other words, once one departs from the exclusive and specific specie of CHRISTIAN theism everywhere proclaimed in the bible, cstratton2 is the logical conclusion and ANY tolerance of this kind of syncretism at all logically precludes one from legitimate criticism of some one like this lad because hes’ simply being consistent. I agree with him and I’m just bein honest Pat. I’m not tryin to start a fight, but we both knew we would not see eye to eye on a LOT of doctrine and theology.

[quote]forbes wrote:[quote]pat wrote:[quote]cstratton2 wrote:The bible which was written by second hand prophets… I find Jesus Christ to be a great example of a humanitarian, however alot seems to not sit right… The teaching is meant to dissolve oneself and see past conditioning, not to follow blindly to random scripture and text and call it truth through a pattern of the mind, theology and belief is just a mental mind construct. [/quote]This is all wrong. I suspect you have not read the whole thing or know a great deal about biblical history. Jesus was not a humanitarian, he was the Christ. God incarnate in the flesh. Much more than a humanitarian and the depth and breath of his presence on Earth is still yet to be fully realized and understood.[/quote]Precisely. And people who see Jesus as simply a good guy, a humanitarian perhaps, are absolutely clueless to the fact that will kill millions of people when he returns. He has every right, for he is God. That will be the side of Jesus we will be frightened to see. [/quote]This is certainly true. Jesus Christ is the creator and sustaininer of all the universe. His crown and kingdom is the reason for the existence of everything from before the foundation of world. From whom, for whom, to whom, and through whom are all things. He is the spotless lamb of the thrice holy God and coming judge of the living and the dead at whose appearance men will cry out for the rocks to fall upon them that they might escape His wrath. He is not a groovadelic, hippified, crystal concious commune leader sent to proclaim the brotherhood of man. IF of course one takes the bible seriously. Which practically nobody does anymore.

97

“Precisely. And people who see Jesus as simply a good guy, a humanitarian perhaps, are absolutely clueless to the fact that when he returns he will kill millions of people when he returns. He has every right, for he is God. That will be the side of Jesus we will be frightened to see.”

Being killed by Jesus is gonna be the least of their problems I imagine, where exactly in the
Bible can we find that Jesus himself will have a personal hand in the killing of unbelievers in the future when he returns?
Chapters and verses please on that scenario on the future slaughter of millions by Jesus himself when he returns to earth. Please don’t laugh, but I have truly never heard about that specific act by The Savior in the future, yet …thank you.

98

[quote]forbes wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]cstratton2 wrote:
The bible which was written by second hand prophets… I find Jesus Christ to be a great example of a humanitarian, however alot seems to not sit right… The teaching is meant to dissolve oneself and see past conditioning, not to follow blindly to random scripture and text and call it truth through a pattern of the mind, theology and belief is just a mental mind construct. [/quote]

This is all wrong. I suspect you have not read the whole thing or know a great deal about biblical history. Jesus was not a humanitarian, he was the Christ. God incarnate in the flesh. Much more than a humanitarian and the depth and breath of his presence on Earth is still yet to be fully realized and understood.[/quote]

Precisely. And people who see Jesus as simply a good guy, a humanitarian perhaps, are absolutely clueless to the fact that when he returns he will kill millions of people when he returns. He has every right, for he is God. That will be the side of Jesus we will be frightened to see. [/quote]

I understand everyones points and are putting up great statements, about war for land, money personal gain etc… I did not say every war was based on religion… The thinking mind is a virtual reality and everything in it is not real… Ask any psychologist this and they know, its a very thin line between normal day dreaming and psychotic break… Jesus would NEVER do something like that, That is religious dogma and stupidity at its finest… Jesus had no favorable side sinner or saint, no one is exempt from salvation, he spent equal time with all… In fact if anything those that are hardest to love need it the most… Yes there are very good christians out there, but also buddhist, atheist, hindu, islam, etc… Theology and belief have nothing to do with a persons ability to be “human”.

99

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
pat wrote:KingKai25 wrote:Pat my friend, this kind of syncretistic nonsense is exactly why I have argued so vehemently before against the notion of a singular religious consciousness underlying the various religions. As soon as you start saying that any religion that looks remotely like monotheism worships the same God (Islam, Christianity, and in your opinion, Hinduism), you open the door for this kind of ahistorical crap.
I didn’t mention anything of the sort. I am not sure why you brought this up? His most royal majestic graciousness is of course free to correct this simple plebe if I am wrong, but he is saying that his PAST rejection of your sometimes syncretistic tendencies have been motivated, in addition to the declarations of the texts themselves, also as a safeguard against just such wide open Unitarianism as is here being advanced by our new young, progressive and open minded friend cstratton2.

In other words, once one departs from the exclusive and specific specie of CHRISTIAN theism everywhere proclaimed in the bible, cstratton2 is the logical conclusion and ANY tolerance of this kind of syncretism at all logically precludes one from legitimate criticism of some one like this lad because hes’ simply being consistent. I agree with him and I’m just bein honest Pat. I’m not tryin to start a fight, but we both knew we would not see eye to eye on a LOT of doctrine and theology.
[/quote]
Again, I made no mention of anything of the sort. And there is no departing of Christian theism at all in anything I have said, past or present. I feel it’s a choice of deliberate misunderstanding of either myself or Christianity as a whole.
Who is anyone to judge whom God loves or chooses to save? We are not capable of that observation. There is humility in understanding that. If you people wish to discuss that, I am open to it, but I made no mention what so ever of it here. It seems odd to bring this up randomly from things of the past that seemingly have no link or current bearing on the topics at hand.
Forgive me, but bring up things from past threads out of the blue seems a deliberate attempt to pick a fight. Otherwise, why comment on something I did not say?

100

[quote]cstratton2 wrote:

[quote]forbes wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]cstratton2 wrote:
The bible which was written by second hand prophets… I find Jesus Christ to be a great example of a humanitarian, however alot seems to not sit right… The teaching is meant to dissolve oneself and see past conditioning, not to follow blindly to random scripture and text and call it truth through a pattern of the mind, theology and belief is just a mental mind construct. [/quote]

This is all wrong. I suspect you have not read the whole thing or know a great deal about biblical history. Jesus was not a humanitarian, he was the Christ. God incarnate in the flesh. Much more than a humanitarian and the depth and breath of his presence on Earth is still yet to be fully realized and understood.[/quote]

Precisely. And people who see Jesus as simply a good guy, a humanitarian perhaps, are absolutely clueless to the fact that when he returns he will kill millions of people when he returns. He has every right, for he is God. That will be the side of Jesus we will be frightened to see. [/quote]

I understand everyones points and are putting up great statements, about war for land, money personal gain etc… I did not say every war was based on religion… The thinking mind is a virtual reality and everything in it is not real… Ask any psychologist this and they know, its a very thin line between normal day dreaming and psychotic break… Jesus would NEVER do something like that, That is religious dogma and stupidity at its finest… Jesus had no favorable side sinner or saint, no one is exempt from salvation, he spent equal time with all… In fact if anything those that are hardest to love need it the most… Yes there are very good christians out there, but also buddhist, atheist, hindu, islam, etc… Theology and belief have nothing to do with a persons ability to be “human”. [/quote]

That is NOT religious dogma.
The objects of thought may or may not be true, but it is not ‘virtual’ but very real indeed. And Jesus did pick sides. He picked the side of humility, love and repentance and rejected the arrogant, sinner or saint.