Nathan_Jr

Victor taught beleeeving so the believer could be blamed. The con, the fraud, the charlatan requires beleeef. Truth does not. Belief has no place where truth is concerned.

"Eternal Now is a concept of time perception suggested by some proponents of New Age spirituality.[1] Its characteristics vary from increased awareness of the present moment to a broader, more open and holistic perception of one's subjective past and potential variants of future. The concept is consonant with and constitutes an integration and development of a number of approaches to spiritual alertness and totality of perception advocated by various forms of Buddhist philosophy (in particular Zen Buddhism) [citation needed], Shamanic practices, and other philosophical and spiritual directions, both ancient and contemporary." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_Now_(New_Age) My fellowship commander would misapply this concept, as well. He said victor coined the term, but, of course, victor did no such thing. If the word of god is an eternal now, then it's not the Bible or any version of the Bible, nor interpretation nor class nor Paul.

Hello, Irony. I've missed you!

Wow. Just… wow… …The unflinching regurgitation, the reflexive parroting. The utmost manifestation of indoctrination. Evidence of a very soft, conditioned mind. This is just creepy AF. I need a bath.

You know he wasn't a real doctor, don't you?

Moot point. Wrong administration. Unforgivable sin was TO and FOR the Judean's, remember? What would it matter anyway? Paul said all (without exception or distinction) sin is forgiven. He said God wasn't imputing sin anymore. Ask Victor or Loy. Would they agree? Besides, is the Household of God anything other than spiritual? One of the most beautiful stories in all (without exception or distinction) scripture. HOWEVER, it is in the Old Testament. It was instruction TO the Judeans. Got get your TO's and FOR's rightly divided. Again, Old Testament. Wrong administration. To/For. No one here is a Judean.

RAF is more succinct than I.

The original was from Oral Roberts, I think. This idea may go back to the early church fathers - Augustine, maybe? Maybe not. I don't know. Someone does. The gospels deliberately linked their narratives and theologies to the OT (and to Virgil and Homer, according to D.R. MacDonald, et.al.) The writers of the epistles did the same. This is obvious, right? Connect it backwards so you can now connect it forward. It's an interpretive framework. It's reading into the text something not conceived by the OT authors and editors. It's a theological perspective. It's academic. Pretty neat way of looking at it. But it doesn't mean God wrote anything. It just means the writers were clever, as was Oral Robert's. I'm not knocking this interpretive perspective. That's just what it looks like to me. Again, it's academic. It's a glove. If it fits, wear it.

Like the Oral Robert's sermon?

Yes

So good!

I don't think there is a scripture that mentions five days. It's arbitrary, like one or two days. The implication is that one or two days of survival is enough to get the slave owner off the hook, after that (five days, two weeks...), if the slave dies from the wounds, well, too bad -- the only loss is the slave owner's money. Only need to ensure your sex slave survives one or two days.

Like beating your slave to within an inch of her life is righteous, as long as that inch carries her life through day two post beating. Let her die from her wounds on day five.

What I'm saying is what I've said many times: The one claiming to speak for God is surely the one who does not.

There is wisdom in the Bible, for sure. There are ideas worth contemplating, meditating on. There are beautiful turns of phrase, poetry. But It's not the only contemplative book of wisdom, ancient or modern, worth reading.

All I know is that he was sent by God. How do I know this? Paul himself says so of himself. He said it, that settles it, I believe it.

Yeah, well, mogadishu rafa calamari peshwari naan. I would that you all SIT as much as I do. He said Jesus sits at the right hand of God. God is sitting next to his seated son, Jesus. Neither needs to stop working at any time. They can work while sitting. Neither requires rest because neither gets tired, probably because they are sitting. Though God and Christ are absent, take comfort in knowing that they are sitting down

I look forward to Raf's answer, but I just want to say, what if you're right? Consider letting go of this sinister, manipulative dilemma. This is possible: The freedom, the liberty, to look clearly at anything, unencumbered by forgone conclusions and beleefs.

You might read WordWolf’s excellent treatment of Genesis 1 in the Doctrinal forum. I may have misunderstood him or didn’t read it carefully the first time, but my takeaway is that evolution is not incompatible with creationism.

I know she doesn’t believe in hell. Not sure what she thinks about heaven other than she doesn’t see it as a geographical destination. I know she believes life is eternal and death is powerless and Christ Jesus proved it. She doesn’t feel obligated to witness. Maybe she sees her life as a witness. I don't think she believes she can make anyone see what she sees. Again, she sees it as a personal journey for each and everyone. But she’s a universalist, so she believes everyone, eventually, will come to the truth. I thought Matthew was Old Testament written TO the Jews, according to TWI. How could the Great Commission apply to anyone other than the eleven disciples, who were dirty Judeans, according to TWI? There’s probably a glove for that.

I missed this part. No. I don’t think she is striving to believe anything. I don’t think she sees God as being displeased. Again, for her, it goes back to Genesis chapter 1 as foundational. God saw everything that he had made. And it was very good.

She's not at all burdened by sin. Church? Not really. I'm sure she would be considered a heretic or something like that by some here. She doesn't talk about her faith unless asked, even then, sparingly. She doesn't evangelize. She doesn't talk about or judge others’ religious beliefs, even when she disagrees. She sees it all as very personal and private. She has two best friends since childhood. She talks to them daily. Amazing love and loyalty among them. One is Methodist, the other Episcopalian.

My mother is a devout Christian. She walks with tremendous peace, compassion, grace and power. I've witnessed her receive countless healings and revelations. She is not a proseltizer/evangelizer. She is not a fundamentalist inerrantist. She knows God isn't in the publishing business and didn't write the books of the Bible. Genesis chapter one is foundational to her theology/philosophy. Chapter 2 on, not so much.

Horrendous. Yes, indeed. I'm not a Jew. I'm not subject the wrath of the Jewish god. (Nor are they.) Nor will I be manipulated by a Pharisee like Paul that simply beleeeving what he says will save me from the horrendous acts of the god of Abram.

Do you likewise think that serpent is perfect? Or when and how is it that fallen creature excluded? And if everything is perfect... why do you suppose God gave instructions to the man to not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil? Did evil already exist at the time of this instruction... or didn't it? Can this be explained?"and that we needed a savior" Saved from what? "Do you likewise think that serpent is perfect? Or when and how is it that fallen creature excluded? And if everything is perfect... why do you suppose God gave instructions to the man to not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil? Did evil already exist at the time of this instruction... or didn't it? Can this be explained?" Good questions, but presumptive. It's a different author, a different god, a different creation myth. In the first creation story, chapter one, El saw that ALL he made was very good - ALL without exception or distinction, whichever you prefer.