sky4it

Satori: your comment: I am saying that, from my understanding of "belief," and what I've seen so far, to "believe" in God is to deny God. Sorry you lost me, I understand the rest of it, but that one I dont follow? Read my other post to you earlier in the day.

Danny: I didnt come to that conclusion either by reading Satori's comments.

About the circumcision: What is the circumcision? Beyond the meaning of simply cutting off the foreskin did it mean something else? Did it possibly just simply mean, be careful what you do with that thing between your legs? Me thinks so. This definition (Be careful what you do with that thing between your legs)is consistent with the Mosaic law, the new testament church, and to some degree Islam, for the new testament church forbade only adultery and fornication and (things sacrificed to idols). But is this definition consistent with faith or rather isn't that a work?. This is where its pretty humorous stuff. (And they said God don't have a sense of humor) What? No fornicating or adulterating could be considered a work? That takes some pretty rare air. Rather, the opposite is true, that fornicating or committing adultery takes work. Jesus must have perceived it, "Depart from me you workers of iniquity." Most women I have heard on the topic think sex is a chore also. (OOPS) Most men don't think its work at all. (OOPS x2) Most men would argue that getting there is the work (OOPS x3) and that that takes a whole lot of work. But abstinence from fornication or adultery being a work? Nope, I can't see it. If a Pamela Anderson look alike is brushing her eyebrows at me for me its simple (Lord help, my interest in you is deeper than that). Faith or faithing (thks Satori, I love that word) keeps me (If a man love me he will keep himself) from little Miss eyebrows. Therefore, keeping my hog tied isn't a work at all, rather letting my hog loose is a work (yes a work of iniquity). Therefore the true meaning of the circumcision(God's second covenant) reconciles itself with Judaism (the true Jewish meaning) and Christianity, and loosely with Islam. Why was the law added? (Because of transgressions for one as Paul said), but also because people never kept the true circumcision. Is the law then a better set of principles to abide by? Apparently not, unless perhaps one can keep the true circumcision and use the law as a learning tool. ie(Are sin and trespass and iniquity the one and same?) Amended for clarity: There is no mockery intended, nor any inferred. I am to the point serious and genuine in my belief that the circumcision, was God's way of saying, don't commit adultry, don't defile yourself or your neighbor.

Guys: As a matter of this thread, I posted a topic about the circumcision in the doctrinal form, which somewhat reconciles difference between Christianity, Judiasm and Islam, in what perhaps ought to be a more centrist faith; the error coming in my view from not understanding and doing the circumcision (as a rule). I am looking forward to your comments on that matter, either here or on that thread. thanks

Danny and Coolwaters: Danny: I think its just a simple system of beliefs. Coolwaters: The linguistic jack in the box doesn't do it for you either? What's a matter with you bro, its simple gymnastics isnt it?

Oak: I breifly read some of the threads on Rafs web site. Thanks. You may find some of the things I say wierd or odd, but I will drivel anyway. I'm not sure that your statements don't meet the criteria for belief and faith in God. I fail to see where God doesn't want us to challenge things that we suspect are error. ie(be wise as serpents but harmless as doves) Your writings also give me new definition for the term loath in respect to TWI. With difficulty, what was (not there responsiblity) but ours that we believed the process? I dont know. I suspect for everyone it might be a somewhat different. It also has created a diffult method with which to communicate. Terms like faith, and the word and believing are irritating. It's a good thing that words like the cross, and suffering and holiness were never wrecked. What is faith? (Satori was writing some cool stuff about nounciples, very humorous)How about an illustration. What did Jacob possess that Esau did not? (Please dont take me as being condescending I am merely trying to communicate my view) Jacob had interest in the promises of God and he also attached some value to them. Esau did not. If this at core level is what faith is (in my view it is), you would seem to qualify. (Although I do not know wehter you have interest and value in Gods promises nor do I know the level that anyone else possess's it either) Why? Humorously, I guess there is no such thing as a faith radar machine. It must be personal then. Perhaps God is the only detector of it. In my view, Oak, I think this. Any view from man, that does not leave an individual with a option of only and I mean ONLY, relationship and direction to God, is anti-God. It is the reason for the clutter that you mentioned. It brings me to another subject of covetousness. Perhaps down the road.

Satori: Your comment: Look closely enough at the behavior (or belief) and you can often find the "fingerprint" of the motivator(s). What do I believe? There is truth. Whether or not it is knowable, and how much is knowable, is another matter. I think you kind of summed up my theology quite well. I also think God is far more interested in developing character, then he is about having us charachterize his behavior with a well defined set of "nounciples". Cool word by the way. I always ask myself what is the practicality of a certain matter? With some doctrines is it refreshing to count your footsteps in order to walk? lmao No, It only gets wierd when someone tells you you must count your footsteps in order that you may walk. (Believing = recieving) If I applied that to every thing I did everyday I would go nuts.

Satori: Yeah ok Jay. Good ole Jay, I think one of his cronies (Hwooders) got me kicked out of the ESPN sports board room for posting paradies ( funny stuff too) about obnoxious Hollywood types. Can't repost it here, (its not profane) but rather blightful. A couple things I wanted to say to u Satori and yeah this is off topic) My experience with TWI was limited. About the only thing it cost me was 15 credits of college Greek and some heartache. I did however have a similar experience (3-4 years) with a Pentacostal Bible School. It seems Ronald McDevil (hes everywhere hes everywhere) started tempting Miss Pastor Wretched (Dairy) Queen. Burger Boy stopped by one day(and not for a barfait either), and the Pastor went and did the wild monkey thing, even while she was preaching. While needless to say, there were no more biscuits to serve. My question to you is this Satori ( and I dont mean to pry dont answer if yah dont want to). Where are your thoughts today as far as God is concerned and your own beliefs? I know you have a razor edge for picking out things you dont like, but what do you believe and like?

satori: Your too funny, you got a gift for something. You should be writing lines for Jay Leno. lmao

Raf: Your comments: when Jesus said some standing there would be alive when the kingdom came, Doesnt that resolve itself from what Christ said what the kingdom of God would be? Ie(love joy and peace in the Holy Ghost), thus fullfilling when people recieved the Holy Spirit? I didnt remember if the scripture used the word Kingdom or not and didnt look it up either.

Lindy: I also thought today much about this one question you had: I would ask this. Am I any less worthy than Paul? Am I any less needy of proof? I would say that if God or Jesus or God-Jesus were to stop me on the road somewhere and audibly speak to me and blind me and then have a stranger or rather one one I would normally hate come over and heal me miraculously, I think I would believe. Don't miss understand me , I am not sure I can answer this question in full, but perhaps in part. I find myself wondering much these days, about this one scripture in Revelations that talks about the Lord's "new name". Well, whats a matter with his old name, why does he need a new one? We have this world where our self worth is evaluated by others, on basis of accomplishments, success, other things. I think most of us would admit if we met a famous person (like the President), we would change our behavior to be careful to put the best spin on our behavior. Yet , I think if we met Christ wouldnt' most of us do the same? I think Christ rejects this method of behavior. I see in this name change thing, God's method of dealing with that. In order for this process "of comparisons with others" to be negated, something must change within us. The leadership example of His Majesty is quite profound. He seems to disrepect others to the degree that they disrepect not himself, but others who are the "least" in everyones view. From this example I take delight, for I know affirmation of his approval is miles different than back slapping in this world.

Oak: Thanks for the link. One more thing. Your comment: free-for-alls with the Christians maligning our lack of faith, and my fellow non-believers and I criticizing the believers for lack of thinking ability... I just wanted you and lindy to know how refreshing it is to me personally to talk about scriptures in a challenging way. There are many things I "need to know" that I don't, some of which were washing around in my mind prior to this thread. Understanding things, I think , is the process of enlightenment. I am also wondering if your have any comment to my post in the next John Lynn letter from shandanzer, and how exactly you think, the former "rightly divided scripture" thing of TWI fits not just in your scheme but in the scheme of peoples mind who perhaps might deplore the Bible?

Oak: See comment directly above. Yah know I posted after reading part of the new JAL letter to Shandanzer? Is it possible that what I posted is a literal desciption of some of the nonthiest theories? If it is I understand it and I am really zipped.

Statement from letter: Its Author put within it the linguistic keys to deriving His originally intended meaning. Again, very few Christians approach the Word with these keys, because they have never been taught them. Thus, most sincere Christians are in the dark about many critical spiritual issues, because they do not know who to understand the Bible. Once again sincerity is hogwash? and liguistic keys are the key to opening the door. Why is it that my Bible reads differently? My Bible says knock and a door will be opened unto you Seek and you shall find, or is that negated by the fact that the gospels weren't written to us? Is it really linguistic keys that open up the door of God? I can only hope my friends on the Why Christianity thread werent so insulted by the inefficiency of linguistic keys that they find the Bible diplorable. If thats the case, I would think somebody has some explaining to do.

Oak: You made some mention of Rafs website, or another website where others post. I am relatitvely new to GS and was not aware of them. If you provide me with the links either here or at my EMAIL I will put them on my favorites list and visit. Thanks. Anyways, I enjoy the intellectual stimulation and it is not threatening to me. If whatever your views are is trying to keep the rif-raf out, if it works for you it works for me, I aint very yippy skippy on mayonaise on moldy bread either, I find focusing on answers delightful; rather than periodic tiptoeing to not cause a pandemic. :D-->

oak: last comment i made: I meant not from any "Man" later

Oak: I think your comments in your last post are very healthy oak, and I think you will prevail. It is refreshing from my standpoint to hear someone who wants answers, I think you will find them and not from any many either. I'll be here. And I agree with you that arguements can take on that velocity that you mentioned. But you and I did not did we? :)-->

Lindy: Your comment: I would ask this. Am I any less worthy than Paul? Am I any less needy of proof? No I dont think that your are lindy, in fact that would make God a respecter of persons.When does God give such proof? I dont know. I can only speak for myself that I asked one time "God if your real show me I need your help." He did for me. Perhaps sometimes we get too caught up in what words mean. Was my statement significant enough to constitute belief. I guess it must have been. With respect to the Koran, I dont think I dismissed it quickly. Your comment: How about how the teachings of Moses are basically plagerized from Hammerabi's Stele. Ever heard that one. In fact many texts of world religions bare many similarities. But somehow just because the Bible tells of a historical figure that is raised from the dead, eternally, makes it the most credible text? How does that make sense? I have never heard of Hemmerabi's Stele I think a gospel of the resurrection from the dead does make sense. For if God is alive, surely he would address ( if he was merciful) this problem. I think the Bible is the most reliable text. (I pointed out prophecies prior posts) Your comment: Actually, what you refer to as "Christ himself" was much less than secondhand information My apologies, I was refering to when asked by the priest if he was he said I am. Paul's "revelation" is only supported by Paul himself. The same can be said of the God of the The Bible speaks of other gods like Baal and the Devil, but they are evil, of course. Why? because the one true God said they are. Oh, OK, easy enough Well, ok, it works for me, cause I think the devil is really evil. As far as Paul goes, someone there are testators as well. Lindy perhaps you have mistaken me. I make no claims about Western Christology. The last lutheran church I attended the officials gossiped about me because of my wife. I rarely go to church. My theology is the live by the seat of your pants theology. I dont think I have a friend.They gossiped about me because nurses there knew of my wifes illness. Let me tell you my story. I spent 4 years in a Pentacostal church that collapsed because of adultry.I have a 2 year bible degree and a 4 year college degree. After I was married my wife was in the hospital 50 times (impatient for the next 8 years) with historonic kidney infections. Today she is on numberous medications. My daughter had luekimia at age 5 and survived and is alive today. During my wife's illness I lost my business. Please please please dont feel sorry for me. This is not the point I wanna make. The point is that through out this (and some things I havent mentioned) I have found my life. Seems you really get a good look at what people really think when you got problems. Thtoughtout all this process there were some times of real dissatisfaction with God for me. Why is it than, that today I somehow find all my loses of time and pain so clearly redeemed? I cannot explain the process. I can only marvel at it. Am I saying God is a sadist? No, niether am I saying that he designs suffering for any man. I only know that he can redeem it all. Clearly, if I can just keep my bearings from bitterness, I always prevail. I cannot explain it. I dont find my life any more perplexing than this. We talk, we drivel about divine authority. Isnt it enough to simply put it all in his hands. What is his name? Is it not Jah, or in Swedish Jaaah or in English Yea. Whatever his name is , whatever his doctine is, I care not, I only know that he lives When I said above perhaps you have mistaken me I simply mean this. I cannot define the limits of the word believe. Faith, perhaps this term has been used to redundant. To me in only means having a sincere interest in God. I see my interest in God broading, I see my interest in God more sure and more profound. Somehow I think we have lost the meaning of the word faith. I think thats all that it is, a deepening interest and resolution of his ways.

Oak : see above :)--> Eagle: sounds good to me thats one cor that that will some day work. I like it simple to Steve, cause it really is. :)--> lindy: I kinda posted a barage of answers tonight to oak, I am thinking about what your saying and will get back to it. :)-->

Oak: I had this all typed up and lost it on a wrong click, so I worked overtime tonight. Your com ver, don't you see (what am I thinking, of course you don't see ) that a devout Muslim would reject your arguments against his "holy scriptures" for the same reasons that you reject my arguments against yours? I also pretty much agree with your statements on the Muslim topic. To directly answer this question , certainly mine and a Muslims rejections of arguements look similar. I can only argue that I have a valid reason for myself, that is, My faith works. OK, so now you say his faith works too so they are identical? I think this brings us into a completely different topic of judgement oak. Neither am I saying that God's work is to convert Muslims to some sort of Western brand Christology. (This is somewhat why I pointed to the writings of Sundar Sing) Anyways, if your really interested in me driveling on about this subject, ask and you shall receive much drivel. Your comment about the circular arguement stuff (I didnt repost all your comments) No, I dont accuse people of bieng possessed, being deluded or having devil spirits. Interesting that you should bring it up. I have never heard from any gospel source what there definition of an unclean spirit is, is it a actual devil spirit or was Christ simply cleaning ( as in making holy) peoples spirits around which some devil spirits resided? (Well for now oak lets leave the devil slaying stuff for another day ok?) You seem to think I need to take a bantering view of my faith, ( in opposition to others) , in order to validate my faith. This is the point where I depart from knowledge oak. It is my view that God's work is far more concerned with "CHARACHTER" than he is with having me have a finely tuned set off knowledge with which to validate my views. This view also reconciles more readily with the disparity of knowledge base (of scriptures) that is found throughout the world. For how could God be just if he hacked the Bible away from Communist countries for centuries and we know he is all powerful to do so at his will. ? His judgement and wisdom is past finding out oak, but I believe the key to understanding it is in God's Charachter. Your comment: Sorry, but I find the scriptures unconvincing as a whole. God was talking up a storm to Abraham, Moses, and even Balaam, but he can't talk to people now? He sends us off to read a book? Well, Oak, I certainly wouldnt say he's talking up a storm, but I get your drift. Unlike man, God is slow to speak. I can even further your arguement Oak for God spoke to Cain after he murdered someone. Yes I believe God can speak. Communion, is that not communication with God? There is a serious disconnect problem tho. What would happen if he said something to be humorous? What would happen if he said something to be taken lightly? Is it possible he is quit careful so as not to be misunderstood? (If you want I will write you a one page letter on this topic) Terrific question. Sorry for the rolling eyes thing, it wasnt meant condesending. I could not find one that had a face with a hand on chin .thinking , this was my intent.

Oak: I did recieve your Email, but for some reason when I tried to Email you back my acct wouldnt let me. Anyway, dont ever worry about me, I aint that sensitive. Now I gotta get back to reading your post. Sooooooooo please never feel with me that your walking on egg shells. You oughtaa see me sling mud in the ESPN room, I'd make yah proud. This is a pancake walk in comparison :D-->

Oak: I apologize for that last line of the last post. I intended that to fit in the paragraph that started with the word "All". I also apologize for being long winded, but I am enjoying this.

Oak read my above post first. (yes i am somewhat intrigue by you and am enjoying this) Your statement: Your statement is a logical fallacy, I believe it is "appeal to authority", where you hold your attendance in various classes as if that was an answer to the argument at hand. No, I dont think this is what I am doing Oak let me put it to your this way. (and I am certainly not implying that my attendace in certain classes is my proof) Scientific assuptions: 1) God exists 2) The writings of Romans Chapter 1 are God's thoughts. All I am saying is that if ( and only if) these statements are true, God has given us his statement on proving his existence. ( At least if the God that exists is the God of Romans Chapter 1) I am not appealing to authority, I am simply saying that the God of Romans 1, states that he has provided conclusive evidence. You make the arguement that others say the same (Ie Mohammed) I simply say, there writings don't invalidate number 1 & 2 above. My simple assertions for proof or evidence to me, have nothing to do with my relionship with others. ( including Mohammed) Why? (Seek and you shall find, knock and a door will be opened to you) Those two statements are actionable and relationship related. I say that they are inherently true (not because the author said they were), but because he proved it to me, for, he can do no less or the statements would not be true. He says if I seek (him personally not a Greek manuscript) I will find. Pretty simple stuff, I think. On a humorous note I once read Renae DeCartes ( I think therefore I am) the French philospher, who claimed to prove logically the existence of God. I found it rather amusing. It is not up to me to validate the existence of a God who says he has already done so.

Oakspear: your comment: "There is no god but God, and Muhammed is His prophet"...some might say that you are calling God a liar sky4it I read the Koran 2 years ago. I know what it says. The Koran is bascially a book which plagerizes some of Moses writings. It also pagerizerized the one theisist writings of Moses. It is a book that asks its followers to engage in numerous rituals. It also repeats its own sayings, (in a somewhat poetic way) over and over again. You really cant use this religion as an arguement for a no God view. Why? Because the book stole from Moses and itself argues that the book of Moses was valid. The Koran also holds out Jesus as a Prophet, a clear contradiction from the writers of the gospels and Christ himself. So for you to argue (as tho it were objective) that that statement validates your op that God doesnt exixt is not subjective. The only thing you can say about Muhammed is that he strayed offthe beaten path. Interestinly that statement you quoted I believe is a direct quote from Muhammed himself. Christ had testators. your comment: Circular argument, once again. We are not calling God a liar. George is stating that he doesn't see any evidense that he exists, and I'm saying that I see no evidense that your version of him is necessarily more true than any other version of him (or her). Niether can I present to you an illustration that to me is objective. Why? Because it wouldnt be objective to you, its simply 2nd hand information. If you didnt witness it or experience it, you would think me a liar perhaps. Therefore I have not ventured down that road. Here's my question to you oak. What would it take from God to prove his existence? What should he do to validate his existence? What hasnt he done that he ought to do or in what better way ought to he have handled himself? In the next 2 paragraphs, I will illustrate to you why I think you cannot answer this question: I am sure you have read the story of Lazarus and the rich man, who both died. The rich man asks God for God to send someone to his family to warn them about what may happen to them if they dont change there ways. The man pleads with God who simply says, they have the law and the prophets and also that they would not believe tho one rose from the dead. (yes im paraphrasing) Did God not send this man someone out of arrogance? Hardly, he said they will not believe ( basically no matter what the proof) With respect to heaven or hell and God's method's of justice, there are many human thoughts on the topic, but little talk about God's justice. Interestingly, Christ talked about those bieng cast out into "outer darkness". Where is that? The Bible really doesnt say. I know of only 3 authors whose works have somewhat impacted my own thought on things. Soemwhat thankfully 2 of them are dead and have no followers. One man was a converted Hindu man in India, named Sadhu Sundhar Sing. Sing claimed to have a heavenly vision, where he talks about what certain people are experiencing as a result of there posturing in this life. The concept fits quite well with Christ's statement of outer darkness and the concept of perfect justice. If "perfect justice" is the ticket for proof for the existence of God, you would find this writing quite fascinating. Anyways, I will post more to you on this topic later, and be sure that I am wieghing your thoughts -->

Oak: I understand fully the difference between subjective arguements and objective ones, having spent time in numerous science and philosophical classes. I dont want to be offensive either to you or Geo, Oak. But the fact is you guys are calling God a liar. Surely you have read Romans Chapter 1 where Paul says , God has shewed them, Ie.( his God head and invisible nature etc.) How God reconciles his righteousness with your arguement that it is not so, I know not for sure, but i will think about it,and that is up to him. Anyway later and peace