Ah, the confines of another's mind which is thrusted onto knowing individuals ... Religions, specifically Christian-based dogmatic beliefs, give people a reason to hate, a culture to despise, an act to loathe. If a person has pre-marital intercourse, a preternaturally pleasurable experience in its own right, fundamental Christians <i>hasten</i> to tell the <b>sinner</b> that, unless the evil deed is repented of, the sinner's soul is in danger of being cast off/vanquished/insert favorite euphemism here. It does not matter that the individual most likely did <i>not</i> believe that sexual intercourse was a bad act in which to engage. It is assumed that, regardless of the intent of the <b>other</b>, Christians must <b>help</b> the person by denouncing the act. Does this not denounce the person that committed the act? Indeed, it does. Who takes the blame (or credit) for the emotional manipulation in this situation? God, because he's capable of mass justification in the name of his son? The Christian? Pshaw. Just following orders. From TOOL's <i>Opiate</i>: <blockquote> Choices always were a problem for you, What you need is someone strong to guide you. </blockquote> The above quote is to imply that making choices for Christianity is really not a choice in essence. Given the option of doing good for others without an eternal reward, how many Christians would opt for this? They want to do good (and avoid evil) mainly for the reason that they believe that what they endure in this life is not in vain. Rather than strike out on their own and trust their own tremendously subjective consciences, it is far easier to <i>follow</i> what others have put before them. If God (in the Old Testament) despises homosexual behavior, does that mean that I should as well? What if I don't, wouldn't that imply that I'm going against God? And why is homosexuality wrong/bad/evil while incest (Genesis or the romp described between an inebriated Lot and his daughters) is actually condoned/acceptable/all right in certain circumstances? So, if God thinks it's okay to hate homosexuals, then it must be wrong to think otherwise. Forget if you've had great experiences with other people, despite their sexual preference. Doesn't matter, according to the O.T. God. Homosexual? Wrong. Ah, yes. How blasphemous of me to forget about the commandment to procreate. If life is so sacred, why was Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed? Because they decided to NOT procreate? Or because they decided to engage in homosexual, and therefore unacceptable, behavior? Or, possibly because they <b>chose</b> <i>not</i> to follow God's commandments: in essence, exercising some free will that they probably thought they had. Nope. Exercising free will that happens to be against God's commandments is not exercising free will. That's disobeying. The only <b>choice</b> is to follow. The alternative (back then, naturally) was death. Great way to get others to worship you as a benevolent being, that accepts you for what you are, regardless of your sexual preference. Antichrist. Marilyn Manson. Saddam Hussein. Mr Rogers. Presumably, anyone that doesn't adhere to the set guidelines and rules put forth by Christ (and his subsequent para-leaders) falls into this category. Perhaps that's a little too broad. Those that purposely try to dissuade others from a belief in Christ and his teachings becomes an apostate, then graduates into a junior antichrist. The real Antichrist title is apparently reserved for the person that Nostradamus (pun purposely excised) supposedly saw in his vision of the future. Which brings us to Satan. The scapegoat of Christianity. Continually vigilant in leading astray the would-be followers of Christ. Science? Satan-based. Free-thought? Satan-based. Religion? Sorry, too easy. To assume that Satan is forever trying to thwart the good intentions of others is, by far, the most fantastical scenario ever. Well, perhaps not the most. He commands millions of minions the world over, lives in the middle earth, has access to our facial expressions based on guilt-induced deeds we perform, and holds casual conversations with God (see Job). Can't be that bad of a guy if he's up there chatting with the Almighty, right? Of course, the converse of Christianity is true as well: being a Satan-worshipper is not much of a free-thinking life either. In order for Christianity to exist (and gain power) it must set forth the things that it hates. Satanism, too. Now, does this diatribe discount the good that people do? Of course not. This monologue says that when a person does good, they are to blame. And when a person does bad, they are to blame. Not God or Satan in either case. Naturally, no one's wrong in their belief system (I cannot convince them of that nor can usually anyone else--directly at least), nor is anyone absolutely right. Subjective? Of course. The reason to hate something else lies within ourselves, not on the shoulders of God or Satan. Or Mr Rogers.
In response to Tony1 Unfortunately, yes. I did get caught. But probably not in the sense you intended. I did not get caught committing some sinful act. Then again, getting caught could imply that it was somehow wrong. Nice one. The carpet was pulled out from under my exceptionally religious life only to be replaced by a rug of non-beliefs. Which one is the better of the two? Neither. I'm currently in the process (tedious to be sure) of defragmenting my hard drive. Need to weed out the bad clusters and consolidate the good ones. Naturally, this causes a vent to be exposed. Hence, the minor essay: A reason to hate. Polarities always bring out the most from people. It is very easy to take offense--it almost qualifies as a legitimate leisure activity. Though Eastern in origin, I find it best to redirect that energy into something else. Say, writing. Thanks for your reply.
There's not a whole lot to add to that So I'll just say that my critical mind informs me that your thoughts are expressed in a postmodern format. That, of course, is of no help. I sometimes think it is about education. Not just in the three-R's way, but in people realizing what ideas are, and what of history, psychology, or other such concepts are present in said ideas. I often mention the economization of ideas; that is, that it is impossible to transmit fully to another person the whole of your experience; hence, the perspective of that other person is still different. The Sufi story of Why the Clay Birds Flew Away nakedly points out that often people forget what certain things are for. I think Christianity has forgotten what it is for because too much gets left out from one generation to the next, and conformity becomes a mechanical exercise instead of the spiritual equity it alleges. Without that spiritual passion, it seems people are reduced to creating their own passions, one of the most frightening is the license to hate things without knowing it. I've been having fun with the book of Genesis, of late. I mean, God kills Onan for not knocking up his dead brother's wife. But there's also the motivation of what is at stake, from Genesis 3.22-23: It is absolutely inappropriate that anyone should be equal to the Lord. Of course, it was part of his plan all along to make it even possible to equalize by the eating of fruit. This, of course, from the literalist interpretation. I'm searching around for an early epistle in which the apologist writer declared that a man in Christ was a new organism entirely; that one cracks me up and I think might be relevant to your diatribe. (Your word ... but I can appreciate a diatribe of that nature Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ) In the meantime, I wanted to offer a snippet I've come across in the search. You wrote: Perhaps this might provide some insight, from the early church document The Epistle to Diognetus: If they help your soul, they become God. Or something like that. The concept seems to have survived the intervening period in a relevant form. But as I noted, there's not much to add, so it would seem I'm merely rambling. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Re: In response to Tony1 Your nickname is rather interesting in that it describes what you're doing. Look up "anothen" in the NT, and see what it means as compared to what you've been told it means. It may have some impact on your defragging.
Most impressive <blockquote> quote (tiassa): <hr> But as I noted, there's not much to add, so it would seem I'm merely rambling. <hr> </blockquote> It would not do justice to your words to add anything of my own commentary. Suffice to say, thanks for what you wrote. As to tony1 ... <blockquote> quote (tony1): <hr> Your nickname is rather interesting in that it describes what you're doing. <hr> </blockquote> Meta-talk is such an interesting pasttime, you agree? <blockquote> quote (tony1): <hr> Look up "anothen" in the NT, and see what it means as compared to what you've been told it means. <hr> </blockquote> Hmm. Anothen. Could be a Hebrew derivative? I notice you quote (frequently) from the KJV; any reason as to why it's specifically from this particular version? I'm afraid that I do not have my old copy of the NT on hand at this time. Could you ... enlighten me as to the meaning and its counterpart? I feel it only just to respond to your challenge with one of my own: <blockquote> <hr> A man throws stones at a monkey in a tree. The monkey is out on a limb. The man is on the ground. The man does not care for the monkey's scrambling along the branches of the tree. Perhaps the man is angry at the monkey because the monkey scrambles along the branches because it <i>can</i>. <hr> </blockquote> Now, what is more courageous? Throwing stones at the monkey out on the limb, or, being out on the limb? On a different note. You are quite well-informed as to your scriptures. I am very impressed about that (though it means nothing, I'm sure, coming from me). It makes me think that you hold to, possibly, one of two religious persuasions. *Just employing some Sun Tzu philosophy, here* By the way, I couldn't help but notice that most of your reactions can be quite predictable. A quote here, rhetoric to support the quote, then repeat. (Wait, I forgot the twelve-jibe combo you interject into your comments). What would catch all of us off-guard would be for you to express some inner thoughts without feeling a need to support what you have to say with "inspired" words from the KJV Bible. Here's something inspired from Psalm 46: This particular section of Psalms was supposedly translated by Shakespeare. If you count 46 words into this Psalm, you will find the word: <b>shake</b>. If you then count 46 words from the end of this Psalm, you will find the word: <b>spear</b>. Why Psalm 46? Shakespeare was 46 at the time of the translation. Guess that one slipped by the censors. Naturally, I'm just trying to get you riled up, because discussions are always good. Little jibes here and there can't be all that bad, right? Besides, I could swear that the OT mentions some Mosaic tendencies which are quite obvious in some of your responses. How's that for being cryptic? Thanks for the discussion, pragmathen
Re: Most impressive Sure, but in most cases, it will get you accused of at least three things... being sarcastic, being illogical, and being dense. I'm pretty sure that you must have noticed that your nickname was Greek rather than Hebrew. KJV is just the version that most people have on hand. Oddly enough, the monkey is quite at home out on the limb. Try attacking one member of a herd and if you didn't know it required courage, you'll find out soon enough. One good, the other evil? You've got it narrowed down a lot. I'm not here to impress people with how closely I can imitate a spinning top randomly ricocheting off everything it touches. Here's the reason for the quotes... So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it. (Isaiah 55:11, KJV). My own words may return void, but God's word won't. Here is one reason I write... When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand. Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul. (Ezekiel 3:18,19, KJV). Here is another reason I write... Again, When a righteous man doth turn from his righteousness, and commit iniquity, and I lay a stumblingblock before him, he shall die: because thou hast not given him warning, he shall die in his sin, and his righteousness which he hath done shall not be remembered; but his blood will I require at thine hand. Nevertheless if thou warn the righteous man, that the righteous sin not, and he doth not sin, he shall surely live, because he is warned; also thou hast delivered thy soul. (Ezekiel 3:20,21, KJV). I'm actually fairly self-centered, but here God has given me two ways to deliver my soul. Thus, in a self-centered way, I can deliver my soul, having zero interest in explaining to God why someone else failed to hear about a warning which I could have given. Ooh. Riled up? Ha ha. The OT covers a lot.
Eh, batter, batter ... suh-wing, batter! <blockquote> quote: <hr> <i>Originally posted by <b>tony1</b>:</i> Sure, but in most cases, [meta-talk] will get you accused of at least three things... being sarcastic, being illogical, and being dense. <hr> </blockquote> Let's see, sarcasm. None of your posts has that. Illogical. You seem to thrive on interlocutions and a Mobiüs path of thinking in your replies. Dense. You still believe. Hey, tony1, self-deprecation is not unlike you, but you don't have to unload on me. <blockquote> quote: <hr> Oddly enough, the monkey is quite at home out on the limb. Try attacking one member of a herd and if you didn't know it required courage, you'll find out soon enough. <hr> </blockquote> Ah, yes. I had forgotten you considered yourself one of the flock. Sheep, right? Supposed to be rather intelligent and belligerent in getting their own way. Wait a sec. My mistake. You said "herd." Like as in cattle? A very apt description of your situation. Devilishly clever, no? <blockquote> quote: <hr> <i>Originally posted by <b>pragmathen</b>:</i> It makes me think that you hold to, possibly, one of two religious persuasions. *Just employing some Sun Tzu philosophy, here* <hr> <i>and <b>tony1</b>'s response:</i> <hr> One good, the other evil? You've got it narrowed down a lot. <hr> </blockquote> One good, the other evil? Pshaw. How utterly dismissive of you. Is everything the right hand and left hand for you? Actually, the Sun Tzu reference had nothing to do with your religious persuasion. But, then, you wouldn't have read anything that wasn't church-sanctioned, right? God hasn't recently appeared to you in a vision proclaiming that books are a pretty good source of knowledge, regardless of their political or religious inclinations. And, yes, you've been narrowed down a lot. <blockquote> quote: <hr> I'm actually fairly self-centered, but here God has given me two ways to deliver my soul. Thus, in a self-centered way, I can deliver my soul, having zero interest in explaining to God why someone else failed to hear about a warning which I could have given. <hr> </blockquote> You? Self-centered? Get out of here. So, even if God required an explanation, you would have zero interest in explaining anything to him on the basis of your <i>ego-centrism</i>? Why, Cain, where have you been? It's been a while. In one of your other posts, you mentioned that I had never really "left" the fold because I was never a part of it. And you are? I remember in one of your replies to <b>tiassa</b> that you mentioned that, had it been in your pre-Christian days, you would have asked him to pass the joint, but "thank God, I am not in my pre-Christian days [any longer]." Unfortunately, I cannot find the exact post, but it was phrased nearly like that. So, in your pre-Christian days, what did you think of God? What changed when you found God? My, could it have been <i>what you thought of God</i>? In exchange for (what I'm sure you would deem) your hedonistic sunglasses, you've traded them for your God-coloured glasses, where you see nothing through the haze enamored with the pretense of God <i>but God</i>. "Left" the fold. Absurd to think so, but this could be the one unintentional compliment you've let slip past. Glad to hear you've joined the fold. Or, blast these semantics! Herd.
Is that what vomit tastes like? For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire. (2 Peter 2:20-22, KJV). As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly. (Proverbs 26:11, KJV).
Oh, whoops Gee, I'm sorry, tony1, what with your quoting of illustrious biblical passages and unoriginal personal thought, I thought this was Sir Loone responding. And, if you consider me a fool, perhaps it would be in your best interest not to argue with me.
Re: Oh, whoops You may have been looking at your own. The poster's name appears near the top of the post. I don't consider you a fool, but something you read may have given you that idea, perhaps, the word of God. You seem to view yourself quite highly. Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall. (Proverbs 16:18, KJV). You may be of the opinion that not believing the word of God somehow cancels its effectiveness. To test how that kind of thinking works, try not believing in the law of gravity and see how that works out.
Tony, I can demonstrate gravity. I would like you to demonstrate God. If you go down to a library, much less a university, you can learn a few equations that tell you what to expect from gravity; this will occur without deviation. If you think you've found a deviation, you probably just haven't learned the equation for it. You can demonstrate nothing about God. If you're going to hijack other people's illustrations, for heaven's sake, do it right! Otherwise just go out to the garage and smack yourself a couple of times with a claw hammer; it's about as useful! --Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Guffaw <blockquote> <font size="1">quote:</font> <hr> <i>Originally posted by tony1</i> You seem to view yourself quite highly. <i>Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.</i> (Proverbs 16:18, KJV). <hr> </blockquote> I seem to view myself quite highly? And you're saying that's a bad thing, then? Oh. Okay. Because that's totally not the vibe you put out about yourself, tony1. Modesty has to be one of your defining attributes. BTW, there's not some reference to hypocrisy in that Bible of yours, is there? High and mighty, though. That's the key, because that puts me on equal footing with God, so to speak. Naturally, in my own eyes (just to save you a chance for a funny quip). But, hey, let's say that you and I are not as different as you may believe. Let's say that you know and understand some things on which I can barely keep my head above water. And let's say that, conversely, the same applies to you (not knowing as much as me on a given subject). Great. Now, let it be understood that, despite the fact that we don't see eye to eye on various subjects, it does not negate either of our beliefs. Of course, if you're obstinate, you'll say that just because I believe in something does not make it real (or not real, as in the case of God). How about this. Karma. Now I know that you cringe when eastern thoughts are brought up because you've been told (even if it was by the Almighty himself) that anything non-Christian is <i>anti-</i>Christian. But what you dish out, essentially, is returned to you. So, though you may be able to dole out words of denigration to various posters (myself included), it should not gall you in the least to receive the same. This is kind of like your quote from the Bible where the "dog returns to its vomit". When you get that bile taste in your mouth after reading a response from a fellow poster, yeah, that's what you dished out initially. When I get that back, I understand it's because of the manner in which I've written my post. So, with that out of the way, let's get to your words. <blockquote> <font size="1">quote:</font> <hr> You may be of the opinion that not believing the word of God somehow cancels its effectiveness. To test how that kind of thinking works, try not believing in the law of gravity and see how that works out. <hr> </blockquote> See, this is what I mean by unoriginal thought. You probably grabbed this analogy straight out of your "How to Win Over non-Christians with the Use and Abuse of Silly Analogies" book you keep just for this purpose in your front shirt pocket. Where you err, of course, is in the assumption that God exists. God's existence is, at best, dubious. Now, the existence of Gravity, however, is supremely empirical as well as globally accepted. If you let go your hat, it will "fall" to the ground, because Gravity pulls it. This is obvious, what am I doing explaining it to you? Could it be because you've set yourself up for it? How about this test, instead: Try walking across a lake a water to prove your "faith" in God. I know, I know, you don't have to "prove" your faith in God by walking across a lake. Well, tell you what, whether I believe in Gravity or not, I'm proving that Gravity exists each time my body returns to the ground after jumping up for a brief time. You kind of have a most difficult time proving God exists. Well, what about this Bible I've got! Great bookend. Of course, there's your personal experiences with God which is impossible to discount, because they're <i>personal</i>. So, how about next time when you offer a challenge, be prepared to see the lunacy of your viewpoint. And if you take offense at these writings, be assured that it was because of the impact your words had on me. Intent does not matter when it comes to interaction.
Re: Guffaw No, the Word of God says what it says. If you wish to fall, then pride is the way to go. From what I read, there is no value judgment applied to the issue. You choose. Actually, there is. Bold, to say the least. I'd say that, obstinate or not. Having spent plenty of time on various eastern religions prior to becoming a Christian, I'd say that "cringe" is not quite the right word "laugh," maybe. This is the western definition of an eastern concept, for sure. In a debate, one should be prepared for attacks on one's ideas. This is not "denigration" It is "debate." Given that this is debate, no. You really have no clue what it is like to be me. What bile taste? I had no idea that you were such a sensitive debater. Is that available from amazon.com? I've never heard of it before. If I were "assuming" that, I would be in error. I'm suspecting that, given the gravity of your words against God, your own existence may be, at best, dubious. Oh no, hoist by my own petard, into an explanation of gravity, no less. Well, there is that lake of fire thing. I may have some "difficulty" proving the existence of God over an arbitrarily short period of time, especially to a person who rejects God, willy-nilly. But, over the long term, such proof may turn out to be quite easy. Sorry, no offense. Of course, my intent was to have an impact on you. Not to denigrate you, but to alert you to the fact that while you are riding high now, your circumstances may change rather rapidly.
Cheers! <blockquote> <font size="1">quote:</font> <hr> <i>Originally posted by tony1:</i> Having spent plenty of time on various eastern religions prior to becoming a Christian, I'd say that "cringe" is not quite the right word "laugh," maybe. <hr> </blockquote> Touché. I must admit that this made me smile when I first read it. A Japanese man once said to me, "You say there is but one path to God, but there are many paths to Mount Fuji." Now, tony1, I'm sure you would laugh your can off listening to rhetoric like this, but you would remain heroically stoic in the face of adversity when it comes to insulting your version of Christianity. And, since you've apparently spent "plenty of time on various eastern religions," I'll back off completely on this topic, for I see that you are the superior. What exactly constitutes "plenty of time"? Did you actually live any of it, or just read about it? Live with the people and the culture or just read about it? Just enough so that you could "laugh" about it, while turning a blind eye to your own beliefs? <blockquote> <font size="1">quote:</font> <hr> You really have no clue what it is like to be me. <hr> </blockquote> Not entirely sure why this has any relevance. <blockquote> <font size="1">quote:</font> <hr> I may have some "difficulty" proving the existence of God over an arbitrarily short period of time, especially to a person who rejects God, willy-nilly. But, over the long term, such proof may turn out to be quite easy. <hr> </blockquote> Ah yes. Long-term. Nothing like relying on long-term. Tell you what, I'll also rely on long-term. We'll just wait it out, the two of us. You, thinking that God will come down out of heaven and consume Baal [me] and the rest of the unbelievers despite the sacrifice being doused with water [pride]. Willy-nilly? I might need a tony1-definition for this, with root-word derivation and all. BTW, you're rejecting the non-existence of God, willy-nilly. But, I'm sure your blinders don't allow you to see that. Your credo: <ol> <li>I am tony1 and I believe in the existence of God, therefore any argument to the contrary [existence of said God] is untrue.</li> <li>I can see the fallacy of their arguments, but since there is no fallacy within my arguments [for God is infallible], I don't have to question my belief system.</li> <li>I can "prove" the existence of God to someone that already has an inclination towards believing in God, but to unbelievers I have a "difficulty" in doing so. In fact, I don't really need to, it will be evident in the long-term.</li> </ol> This is somewhat, albeit not really, like the maxims Asimov set forth for robots. You can <i>almost</i>, but not quite, be broken down into ones and zeros. If God was any less than you in your strongest area, would you not be disappointed? What if God, seeing as how he changes his mind quite often, come Judgment Day, says, "You know what, tony1? I really appreciate all that you've done in my name. But the truth is, I would've appreciated it more if you weren't thinking the whole time that you'd get some recognition from me." This would be an especially hard blow to be dealt. But, you can<i>not</i> and will <i>not</i> think like this, because that could imply that all that you are doing does not equate to heavenly points. You basically say, through your choice of a personal belief system, that the point of living is to gain favor [through an arbitrary point system] from your God. Do you do good because it feels good to do so, or because you also think God will look more favorably on you? Which is the better of the two? Christians are under the impression that if they do good, then that's cool if God wants to bless them for it. What they don't understand is that it would be more honorable [another eastern concept for us here, tony1] to do good <i>without</i> heavenly expectations of approval. But, hey, outta my hands, they say. But when it comes down to it, tony1, you would have to admit that you'd be pretty peeved if God treated you the same as a casual believer in Christ. Unless, of course, you think everyone is saved by grace alone. <blockquote> <font size="1">quote:</font> <hr> Sorry, no offense. Of course, my intent was to have an impact on you. Not to denigrate you, but to alert you to the fact that while you are riding high now, your circumstances may change rather rapidly. <hr> </blockquote> What makes you think that I'm riding high now? Because I seem to be sure of my words, the connotation you take is "pride"? And I should ascribe piety to you because of your words and the purport of your message? You see me as the ax that boasts of itself, but does not recognize the ax-man that wields it, then? Naturally, if I'm cocky and indolent and <i>laissez-faire</i> with life, then I'd better be knocked on my arse right quick. I'd hope I would be. But if I'm trying to discover through "debate", then I shouldn't be knocked by your God [you] for doing so. Blast! I don't mean offense either, but I can easily understand how it may seem otherwise. Besides, isn't it a tad easier to actually "debate" if there's some mutual tension and enmity between people? If that quality wasn't there, there wouldn't be such legendary disputes as between <b>you</b> and <b>tiassa</b> or between you and a host of others. You have to admit that, when you look at your email, there's a sharp intake of breath as if to say, "Well, let's see what he has to say this time." But I digress. This is supposed to be serious. Where were we? Ah yes. I'm roasting in a lake of fire and you're bummed about God's true personality.
Quote Prag, "How about this test, instead: Try walking across a lake a water to prove your "faith" in God. I know, I know, you don't have to "prove" your faith in God by walking across a lake. Well, tell you what, whether I believe in Gravity or not, I'm proving that Gravity exists each time my body returns to the ground after jumping up for a brief time. You kind of have a most difficult time proving God exists." Kinda reminds me of the time that satan took Jesus to the top of a high temple.........now what was that response? OH YEAH! Thou shalt not.......I'm sure you know the rest. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! In my book it is not up to God to prove Himself for us to believe, I believe by the very fact of what has transpired in my life, by the very wonder of our existence. The proof .....for me to believe is proof enough of Him for me. It's the Catch 22 called faith, see and then believe (it may be to late then) or believe and then see? Allcare Tony H2o
I'm being tag-teamed by the dynamic duo! <blockquote> <font size="1">quote:</font> <hr> <i>Originally posted by H<sup>2</sup>O:</i> Kinda reminds me of the time that satan took Jesus to the top of a high temple.........now what was that response? OH YEAH! Thou shalt not.......I'm sure you know the rest. <hr> </blockquote> Oh yeah, you're right. I'd forgotten that God is completely off the hook for being God. And Jesus as well, because, hey, they're pretty much one in the same, or is that one and the same? Guess it depends on the version of Christianity you claim. BTW, H<sup>2</sup>O, you might have come into the debate slightly out of touch with what went on before because I offered the challenge to the magnanimous tony1 since he offered one to me as well. A give and take sort of discussion. But, your response is good, if a little non-committal. <blockquote> <font size="1">quote:</font> <hr> In my book it is not up to God to prove Himself for us to believe, I believe by the very fact of what has transpired in my life, by the very wonder of our existence. The proof .....for me to believe is proof enough of Him for me. <hr> </blockquote> Isn't it a tad interesting to note that people debate about the existence of God, but in the past, it apparently wasn't an issue? "God? Oh yeah, the Hebrew one. He's that temperamental deity over in that camp. But don't tell him I said so--he's pretty touchy and doesn't take kindly to outsiders." BTW, did you know that a guy in the Old Testament (name escapes me at the moment) asked God to prove to him on three separate, yet consecutive, days that God approved of his venture? Something about dew being on the ground, then off the ground, then under the tent. As such. So, I guess when you say your book, you're not implying the Bible. <blockquote> <font size="1">quote:</font> <hr> It's the Catch 22 called faith, see and then believe (it may be to late then) or believe and then see? <hr> </blockquote> Ever have a life-changing event? One in which your whole world of notions about life and religion and such was turned upside down or completely yanked out from under you? Well, after you've set your life-o-meter to believing <i>and then waiting to see</i> and this upheaval occurs to you, then you go to seeing <i>and then believing</i>. So the <i>Catch-22</i> (nice pun, by the way) situation you refer to is the one you're currently in. If you <i>believe</i> a certain doctrine or principle, but then <i>see</i> that it is not true, you must <i>continue to believe</i> despite what you have <i>seen</i>. There is an excellent site that deals with the issue of the <a href="http://www.threegraces.com/AboveTheDoubleBind/mos123.htm">Double Bind</a> (although its focus is mainly on Mormonism, it does list some specific Bible examples). A fabulous read. <a href="http://www.threegraces.com/AboveTheDoubleBind/mos123.htm">http://www.threegraces.com/AboveTheDoubleBind/mos123.htm</a> thanks, prag
Re: I'm being tag-teamed by the dynamic duo! Yes, Search for Overview, its all there. Allcare Tony H2o
