Question For Christians About Biblical Inerrancy

[Antlerman]

There is more than one object of faith to reach the Divine. It only separates the believers from the non-believers within the context of the object, not on acceptance of the Divine. Don't confuse the symbols with the Divine.

This is the crux of End's stumbling block to the next level....

 

My response to him directly forthcoming.

[Antlerman]

I don't think that represents my position in the least. In no way do I think "anything goes. You must accept to be showing love". Of course there are rules. I was specifically asking what do you see as those rules? Do those rules mandate a belief in the person of Jesus as defined by Christianity?

Yes, as I understand them as they are understood over the course of my life.

Which says this was something you were programmed with prior to your experience. It stands in your way now. The symbol's fine if it works for you. That you can't see past it, is a problem.

 

If so, how and in what way does that qualify as a "rule", as a proper or improper conduct with the context of experiencing love?

Rule by that defined through the Bible and Holy Spirit.

Negative. You don't live love by following rules. Period. Ever read your New Testament? That's in there. In fact, that's its basic gist. It comes from a changed heart. I'll explain...

 

Proper conduct by following the commandments.

Triple, quadruple negative! "White washed sepulchers! All clean and white on the outside, but on the inside full of dead man's bones." If it doesn't begin from within to the outside, the inside of the cup clean first, then following rules is a sham. It's the path to self-righteousness. You don't clean the outside first, then the inside follows. You change the heart first, then the outside follows.

 

And that explains the mystery of why so many of us say that now that we aren't bound by the imposed rules of the legalistic system of your "rules", we actually now genuinely love... and as a result by actions following that, fulfill all those rules naturally. We don't need to follow them. We naturally do them.

 

It comes from inside. Not through cleaning up the outside of the cup, or putting a shiny face on the outside of a tomb, to use a familiar language for you.

 

Within the context of experiencing love? When we love, we normally receive love in return....sometimes not. When I love, I believe that I have turned from trusting the majority of humanity for the reasons to continue loving to the relationship with Christ for the reasons to continue loving. Now that I write this out, it reminds me of the scripture that says Christ will separate you from you family etc....

And ironically, that most likely in that context applied to today, would be us separating from the family of those in the Churches in order to find salvation within us. Stepping out to find the truth in our hearts, and through that, to then love freely, like "rivers of living water". It comes from within. Not through conformity to rules. "Love is the fulfilling of the law". How? Explain that, then you'll begin to see the whole edifice of doctrines and laws fall like shadows hit with light.

[Antlerman]

I need you to specify what those rules are, then let's see if they really are necessary in the grand scheme of things; necessary to produce Fruits of the Spirit?

Pick one...it's your idea. I don't feel like being picked on after submitting a thought.

I'm not picking on you. I never would. I'm specifically provoking you to try to challenge your ideas. To me, they seem stuck. That's why this.

 

How do you as a person that says one thing and then does another have peace in your life?

I'm not inconsistent here. I'm may be changing tactic, but that's not changing my heart. It's really a perception on your part without the benefit of a face to face. And for those times I do violate my own principles, I have to deal with it. Forgive myself, correct myself, and move on. But behind it all, my heart is what it is and I have peace within.

 

And don't tell me that you are that pure where it doesn't happen. I don't believe it before you say it.

Of course not. I'm not pure at any time. But I strive to be truthful. If I lie to myself, then I am living insincerely. I don't desire that for myself. I find value in embracing higher truth. I correct myself, forgive myself, and move on...

 

I do not believe the object of your faith is the condition of acceptance.

Acceptance of what? It does, by definition, separate believers from non-believers.

You just described Idolatry.

 

I don't deny that we move from rules to love in our lives, and I would be hard pressed to define or judge "salvation" for another in God's eyes. But with that AM, I think no other mechanism to be the true one.

Because you are stuck on what your were conditioned with as the symbols meaning one thing. "By their fruits you shall know them" "A bad tree cannot bear good fruit." What does your heart tell you?

 

It's hard to learn how to hear that................

[Guest end3]

There is more than one object of faith to reach the Divine. It only separates the believers from the non-believers within the context of the object, not on acceptance of the Divine. Don't confuse the symbols with the Divine.

This is the crux of End's stumbling block to the next level....

 

My response to him directly forthcoming.

 

This is the same drama we had before in the other thread. My answer will remain the same. I believe Jesus is the Divine.

[NotBlinded]

This is the same drama we had before in the other thread. My answer will remain the same. I believe Jesus is the Divine.

End,

 

You don't have to go outside your religion to understand this. Let me see if I can pull my thoughts from the bible from the previous page and tie them in with AM's references from the bible so maybe you can expand on the mysticism that you know you have within you. You have said others have told you this, so bear with me and try to at least appreciate our efforts (I'm pretty sure you do) to continue this drama a little longer.

 

Here is what I said ealier:

 

I'm not sure I understand the depth of the conversation going on here, but I just wanted to chime in a little about rules. St. Paul speaks of laws and rules and he goes on talking about how he does the things that he ought not do and doesn't do the things he should. This is closely related to rules and how trying to follow them leaves one in this state of confusion because it is only by "Divine Grace" that we realize who we are. The Buddhists will keep one trying to follow a rule such as the rule to love until you realize that you can't love on command. With this realization, love can flow because it isn't forced and you have realized that there is nothing "you" can do about it because this "you" that you think you are doesn't exist (enter "Divine Grace").

 

There are ideas in most religions that are closely related. The commandments may just be ways to "persist in your folly" until you awaken.

 

AM addresses this issue with these thoughts:

 

Negative. You don't live love by following rules. Period. Ever read your New Testament? That's in there. In fact, that's its basic gist. It comes from a changed heart. I'll explain...

 

 

end3, on 04 March 2010 - 04:09 PM, said:

 

Proper conduct by following the commandments.

 

Triple, quadruple negative! "White washed sepulchers! All clean and white on the outside, but on the inside full of dead man's bones." If it doesn't begin from within to the outside, the inside of the cup clean first, then following rules is a sham. It's the path to self-righteousness. You don't clean the outside first, then the inside follows. You change the heart first, then the outside follows.

 

And that explains the mystery of why so many of us say that now that we aren't bound by the imposed rules of the legalistic system of your "rules", we actually now genuinely love... and as a result by actions following that, fulfill all those rules naturally. We don't need to follow them. We naturally do them.

 

It comes from inside. Not through cleaning up the outside of the cup, or putting a shiny face on the outside of a tomb, to use a familiar language for you.

I know that you can see what we both are saying. Paul realized that following strict rules led to self-righteousness and nothing ever guinely changed within a person.

 

AM and I both are saying that following rules in order to love can't happen. We are using different biblical verses to expound on that notion. The only thing commands will do is to get one to "act" the part. The mask is sparkling clean on the outside, but there's grime on the inside. Once the facade is removed, there is love...naturally. Once love flows, the rules, or commands, happen. There is no effort put into it. This is Divine Grace that no one seems to ever achieve by trying to achieve it. Doesn't that say someting? The more you try to fulfill the law, the more you fail?

[NotBlinded]

There is more than one object of faith to reach the Divine. It only separates the believers from the non-believers within the context of the object, not on acceptance of the Divine. Don't confuse the symbols with the Divine.

This is the crux of End's stumbling block to the next level....

 

My response to him directly forthcoming.

 

This is the same drama we had before in the other thread. My answer will remain the same. I believe Jesus is the Divine.

Oh, and by the way, so are you. If you could see that, Jesus would smile.

[bdp]

'jesus' is dead.

[NotBlinded]

'jesus' is dead.

Ya think?

 

It's like saying after a family member dies and someone does something that would make the deceased person proud, "[insert name here] would be so proud of you."

 

I was tying a concept together. In other words, metaphorically speaking in order to communicate a feeling/emotion.

[Sconnor]

Both:

Have no objective evidence.

Are completely subjective in nature.

Can't substantiate their claims.

Use special pleading -- claiming they have the secret key to heal you.

 

You are exactly like the insane scientologist.

 

Can you dispute this?

 

Disputable in that it is no secret and I don't deem it special pleading.

 

This is incoherent. Can you please clarify.

 

WTF? This does NOT comfort the parent in the HERE and NOW who only want their child back. This does NOT comfort a parent who is suffering the greatest loss the death of a child who will NOT have that sharing, that hug, the smile, the laugh, the smell, the cries, the hope, the pride, the joy, the sadness...that is the joy of having a child in the HERE and NOW.

 

This is the point -- NOTHING can console or comfort a parent who can NOT have the joy of having their child in the HERE and NOW.

 

Of course it is different than actually having the child physically present, but that doesn't mean the parent can not receive comfort in the manner I have outlined.

 

The manner you have outlined is still unsubstantiated religious mumbo-jumbo that has no reference in reality.

 

Furthermore, you plainly have admitted -- your all powerful god -- can't comfort in a way that would truly alleviate the immeasurable misery of NOT being with the child, physically.

 

 

Afterlife beliefs; the reason the child dies or you making asinine claims that an understanding is forthcoming DOES NOT give ANY comfort to a parent who ONLY wants their child in their arms right NOW.

If that is their only desire Scott, I will not say no because I have faith that God can do anything.

 

And yet he let's his earthly children suffer in the most vile unimaginable ways, everyday, every minute, throughout history.

 

Really? So you don't have to appeal to "comfort through christ" to be "baptized in the spirit" so you can be comforted by the hope that is the sharing, that hug, the smile, the laugh, the smell, the cries, the hope, the pride, the joy, the sadness...that is the joy of having a child?

In other words muslims can also be comforted after experiencing the devastating blow of their child dying without comfort through christ?

Not what I said...I said that God may touch whomever He pleases with them residing in faith or not, and also whether they understand the origin of the touch.

 

Can muslims (hindus, buddhists, pagans, agnostics, atheists, etc.) get the same amount of comfort from god? Yes or no?

 

Because, if god can comfort everyone, you -- in essence -- rendered your "comfort in christ" bullshit obsolete.

 

Why do you need christ again?

 

Additionally, are you saying that god is the one responsible for bestowing comfort on some people while he neglects the rest of his earthly children? Why does he do that?

 

And how EXACTLY do you know that it was god intervening to give comfort to a person as opposed to ones mind -- over time -- compensating, healing, in an effort to protect their sanity?

 

Well you profess some of the criteria such as: the parents take a step into the entity that is Christ by faith.....let's say it's just a type of realm for lack of a better word....perhaps an un-understandable mental realm that they move their hopes and heart into. This would be like water baptism....we enter the water as water is like the Spirt(John 7:38 i think)....the realm I am describing. It is then, IMO that Christ moves into our body by some physiological means that I know not the mechanism. But, it is this entering our heart by Christ that gives us a special understanding...

 

So what's your point here Scott...God hardened part of Israel in order that the gentiles be brought in, but you think it impossible for Christ to be sovereign and touch whomever He pleases?

 

I think it's morally vile to have the power to touch, comfort, help some people, while neglecting the rest of his earthly children who are suffering in ways we can't even begin to imagine.

 

And -- oh, yes; god hardening peoples hearts -- so much for free will. We are just god's little play things -- puppets he can manipulate by hardening our hearts.

 

~continued~

[Sconnor]

Well, for starters, the non-christians will not step into the entity that is Christ by faith where they would believe christ would enter their heart to give them understanding, (baptism of the spirit) which would mean god's plan is morbidly negligent.

 

How do you know that your heart has not been hardend in the same manner, but you are still one of God's people in the plan? After all, you once were a Christian. OSAS?

 

F-ing hell? So god has hardened my heart? I'm a puppet of his, am I? Free will -- OUUUUUT OF HEEEEERE.

 

And am I saved, because I was a christian? Does that mean people who were never christians are not saved?

 

Also, I couldn't possibly be presumptuous enough to say if god has hardened my heart or not. No one could possibly know. Those types of assertions are for the religiously insane, like yourself.

 

You also need to recognize, you issued another asinine and fallacious question by asking: How do you know that your heart has not been hardend in the same manner?

 

You can't prove a negative, you silly twit.

 

How do you know that aliens called Thetans haven't possessed your body?

 

How do you know that evil fairies are messing with your brain chemistry, causing your bipolar episodes?

 

How do you know that god didn't send me here to demonstrate you suffer from arrested development?

 

How do you know that we are not just a virtual reality game housed in an alien supercomputer?

 

Are you beginning to see the fallacious nature of your idiotic questioning?

 

It's perfectly evident, that according to you and the "comfort through christ" criteria you presented thus far -- god only doles out comfort to a select few christians, while neglecting the rest of his non-christian earthly children -- correct?

In your dreams buddy boy....lol.

 

Really?

 

So you do NOT need the criteria you outlined to get comfort from god: step into the entity that is Christ by faith..... un-understandable mental realm that they move their hopes and heart into...like water baptism....we enter the water as water is like the Spirt...Christ moves into our body by some physiological...it is this entering our heart by Christ that gives us a special understanding...

Muslims, hindus, buddhists, agnostics atheists etc. don't have to use your wacky religious mumbo-jumbo to get comfort from god?

 

Again doesn't this render "comfort through christ", obsolete?

 

~continued~

[Pete]

I'd answer your question as follows.

 

1. For the Bible to have any value as the supreme authority for matters of faith and practice it must be inerrant. When the word literal is used, that does not mean that, for example, poetic or apocalyptic symbolism should be read literalistically. The Bible requires normal reading skills, which take into account the form of literature one is reading.

 

2. If the Bible were not inerrant, then it might still have some value in that it would still benefit many with its insights and wisdom, but it would not be authoritative in the same way.

[Sconnor]

Why would ANYONE (in theory) trust a god who has a shitty track record, specifically -- in the "NOT comforting children who are egregiously suffering for years, track record"? Why would ANYONE trust a god who allows children to be born into this world, with horrible deformities; they will never walk, talk, laugh, or cry. They just wallow in their own waste and become a devastating burden to their family, and to our health care system, yet somehow these non functional humans suffer for years while god does NOTHING. Why trust that?

Because it states that there is something different, and this is not the norm.

 

WTF? Incoherent garbage, again.

 

What is "it" in the sentence?

 

And the examples I provided are just a few in a long list of heinous, inconceivable maladies and atrocities, throughout time, which has always been a part of the "normal" human condition.

 

 

So please in light of my argument above why should god be trusted?

Because it has worked for many, not everyone at this particular point in time, but how do we discern the complete truth either way? It has worked for me. I speculate that for you, like Hans, it has not worked. Why would it ask for continued faith if it were immediate? I would please like you to respond to this.

 

From my perspective "it" hasn't asked for shit. You're the crazy dude who professes to know god's will and character and how "it" supposedly works in our lives.

 

And what about the millions of people "it" never worked for immediately or in the future, through out time -- who do succumb to egregious suffering, people who do give up, where people are forever broken and become incapacitated, mentally unstable, mentally crippled, or attempt/commit suicide -- never to be touched by this MOST TRUSTED god? (sarcasm)

 

Wait -- are you saying that god loves these children and he allows them to egregiously suffer for years while he'll doles out comfort to other children?

I would speculate that it has to do with the sum total outcome. Many things contribute to an effect elsewhere. I don't know that we can accurately predict what suffering of one will have ultimately somewhere else. Look at all the people you have "touched" through your sons's death.

 

Fuck that shit! So you're going to tell me god let my son suffer for months, while he was tortured, pricked and prodded, had bone marrow aspirations , extracted from his hip, BiPap, chemo, IV's, chest port, we were told he was going to become sterile, catheters, horrendous pain in his back and legs, excruciating lesions on his tongue and in his mouth, coughing up blood, pneumonia, he had to be intubated, and put in a coma like state; misery day in and day out and when Connor was finally released from the hospital, he died the next morning from a massive heart attack, while I held him. His own blood poisoned him; it became like sludge and corrupted all his organs... and your going to tell me this is god's fucked up plan so I can "touch" people? Screw you and god's supposed shitty plan.

 

It's just shitty church talk -- bullshit religious platitudes, made by crazy-ass christians that are patently offensive.

 

Knowing this, you continue to vomit up scripture. Why do you do this?

Maybe it is something you have not seen, maybe the scripture presents itself in a new light when you see it at a different time.

 

And this same explanation of yours would also suffice if I used it while spewing qur'anic verses? Noooooooooooo.

 

Biblical scripture is bullshit to me, just like qur'anic scripture is bullshit to you.

 

I understand what you are saying but that doesn't mean what you are saying isn't a big pile of shit perfumed with religious gibberish -- all of what you can NOT substantiate.

Furthermore, everything you have said is not tenable. The only way a parent is to be truly comforted is to have their child back in their arms, so they can share that hug, the smile, the laugh, the smell, the cries, the hope, the pride, the joy, the sadness...that is the joy of having a child, which doesn't happen and won't happen in the here and now. Isn't this true?

 

If you are talking about having your son back physically, no, I don't believe that will happen.

 

Because yooooou knooooow god's will and character and how he intervenes on our behalf. Cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo.

 

As far as hope is concerned, I could insanely hope for my son to materialize before my eyes -- to exist again in the physical, but you and I both know that would be an irrational hope. Nothing but wishful thinking.

 

This is exactly the same hope you have constructed with your "comfort through christ scenario" and an afterlife. Although your delusional construct is more complex -- it is in the end, an irrational hope steeped in wishful thinking, just like me hoping for Connor to materialize before my very eyes.

 

In writing this response, my mind invariably kept thinking: what type of person professes to know the will and character of god and how god intervenes on our behalf?

 

End: God hardened part of Israel...How do you know that your heart has not been hardend in the same manner...?

How do you know god actually hardens peoples hearts?

 

End: God may touch whomever He pleases...

 

How do you know?

 

End: ...God can do anything.

 

How do you know?

 

End: God is love and also like water...

 

How do you know?

 

End: ...that God saturates you with Love

 

How do you know?

 

End: That event, IMO, is provided by God through what I believe is the baptism of the Holy Spirit

 

How do you know?

 

End: God has put me there

 

How do you know?

 

End: I know no other way Scott, except to trust in God.

 

How do you know?

 

End: children return to God before that age of knowledge of self-aware choices for evil.

 

How do you know?

 

End: There was a period of time where God intervened for men.

 

How do you know?

 

End: His plan bud, not yours.

 

How do you know?

 

End: God can make Himself known

 

How do you know?

 

End: ...was a tool that God used to get your attention.

 

How do you know?

 

End: ....and I was wondering why God killed people...

 

How do you know?

 

And so many more god/jesus assertions, telling us how god thinks and what he wants from us...

 

How do you know?

 

The unmitigated gall and absolute arrogance and insanity that is needed to be the one who talks for god -- unreal!

 

You don't know god.

 

You don't know how god works in our lives.

 

You don't know what god wants.

 

You don't know god's will and character.

 

You don't know shit about god.

 

You are a delusional whack-job who has constructed his own god-concept.

 

Some christians profess that Jesus is the prince of peace while "god warriors" claim he is a militant leader.

 

Monks thought Jesus was the embodiment of humility, while mega-church preachers hail Jesus as a motivational tool for monetary successes.

 

Some think of Jesus as an erotic lover, while others think of him as pure and chaste.

 

Some think of god as an evil vengeful god while others think of god as all-loving and all-forgiving.

 

Throughout history Jesus/god has been many thing to many people, because people make the shit up -- just like you do.

 

End, you are a sick, lunatic who makes unsubstantiated claims, based on your own idiosyncratic interpretation of the bible and you use the supposed, voice of god -- to elevate yourself, above others, while wallowing in a false sense of comfort and a bogus sense of superiority.

 

--S.

[Guest end3]

Which says this was something you were programmed with prior to your experience. It stands in your way now. The symbol's fine if it works for you. That you can't see past it, is a problem.

You need to explain how you feel Christ in my life is a problem. Please be blunt.

 

Negative. You don't live love by following rules. Period. Ever read your New Testament? That's in there. In fact, that's its basic gist. It comes from a changed heart. I'll explain...

I can't help but get pissed of from time to time...like after reading this type statement. What in the heck do you think the fulfillment of the law and Christ were for? Do you somehow think I am capable of fulfilling the Levitical Law? Is this what this ridiculous statement you have made is implying?

 

Triple, quadruple negative! "White washed sepulchers! All clean and white on the outside, but on the inside full of dead man's bones." If it doesn't begin from within to the outside, the inside of the cup clean first, then following rules is a sham. It's the path to self-righteousness. You don't clean the outside first, then the inside follows. You change the heart first, then the outside follows.

What commandments were you thinking? But let me share this, I damn sure think that if we were smart enough, or had adeqate insight, the OT and NT "law" would match.

 

And that explains the mystery of why so many of us say that now that we aren't bound by the imposed rules of the legalistic system of your "rules", we actually now genuinely love... and as a result by actions following that, fulfill all those rules naturally. We don't need to follow them. We naturally do them.

Horse hockey.

 

And ironically, that most likely in that context applied to today, would be us separating from the family of those in the Churches in order to find salvation within us. Stepping out to find the truth in our hearts, and through that, to then love freely, like "rivers of living water". It comes from within. Not through conformity to rules. "Love is the fulfilling of the law". How? Explain that, then you'll begin to see the whole edifice of doctrines and laws fall like shadows hit with light.

 

A repulsive statement at best.

[NotBlinded]

I'd answer your question as follows.

 

1. For the Bible to have any value as the supreme authority for matters of faith and practice it must be inerrant. When the word literal is used, that does not mean that, for example, poetic or apocalyptic symbolism should be read literalistically. The Bible requires normal reading skills, which take into account the form of literature one is reading.

 

2. If the Bible were not inerrant, then it might still have some value in that it would still benefit many with its insights and wisdom, but it would not be authoritative in the same way.

Authority is given to something by who places it there. Authority doesn't exist on its own. It only has authority if you say it does. It's that simple.

 

With that known, the insights and wisdom in the bible just increased by being non-authoritative.

[NotBlinded]

Which says this was something you were programmed with prior to your experience. It stands in your way now. The symbol's fine if it works for you. That you can't see past it, is a problem.

You need to explain how you feel Christ in my life is a problem. Please be blunt.

 

Negative. You don't live love by following rules. Period. Ever read your New Testament? That's in there. In fact, that's its basic gist. It comes from a changed heart. I'll explain...

I can't help but get pissed of from time to time...like after reading this type statement. What in the heck do you think the fulfillment of the law and Christ were for? Do you somehow think I am capable of fulfilling the Levitical Law? Is this what this ridiculous statement you have made is implying?

 

Triple, quadruple negative! "White washed sepulchers! All clean and white on the outside, but on the inside full of dead man's bones." If it doesn't begin from within to the outside, the inside of the cup clean first, then following rules is a sham. It's the path to self-righteousness. You don't clean the outside first, then the inside follows. You change the heart first, then the outside follows.

What commandments were you thinking? But let me share this, I damn sure think that if we were smart enough, or had adeqate insight, the OT and NT "law" would match.

 

And that explains the mystery of why so many of us say that now that we aren't bound by the imposed rules of the legalistic system of your "rules", we actually now genuinely love... and as a result by actions following that, fulfill all those rules naturally. We don't need to follow them. We naturally do them.

Horse hockey.

 

And ironically, that most likely in that context applied to today, would be us separating from the family of those in the Churches in order to find salvation within us. Stepping out to find the truth in our hearts, and through that, to then love freely, like "rivers of living water". It comes from within. Not through conformity to rules. "Love is the fulfilling of the law". How? Explain that, then you'll begin to see the whole edifice of doctrines and laws fall like shadows hit with light.

 

A repulsive statement at best.

End, you just shut down didn't you?

[Guest end3]

End, you are a sick, lunatic who makes unsubstantiated claims, based on your own idiosyncratic interpretation of the bible and you use the supposed, voice of god -- to elevate yourself, above others, while wallowing in a false sense of comfort and a bogus sense of superiority.

 

A couple of things Scott and I doubt I will be visiting with you any more unless it just intrigues me. Just wanted to say again that I am genuinely sorry for the loss of your son and the immense suffering that he indured, and your family's suffering as well. I am also hoping the emptiness goes away but that the precious memories of your son's life live in you without fading.

[Sconnor]

End, you are a sick, lunatic who makes unsubstantiated claims, based on your own idiosyncratic interpretation of the bible and you use the supposed, voice of god -- to elevate yourself, above others, while wallowing in a false sense of comfort and a bogus sense of superiority.

 

A couple of things Scott and I doubt I will be visiting with you any more unless it just intrigues me. Just wanted to say again that I am genuinely sorry for the loss of your son and the immense suffering that he indured, and your family's suffering as well. I am also hoping the emptiness goes away but that the precious memories of your son's life live in you without fading.

 

I could give a shit. I'm not here for your pity. And how many times are you going to say you're sorry?

 

Again, tucking your tail between your legs and bailing.

 

What's the matter end?

 

You're all about the truth. And the truth of the matter is, you're a religious lunatic who makes unsubstantiated bullshit claims about god/jesus and I'm the relentless son-o-bitch who bluntly challenges (cutting to the chase, as it were) your bullshit, which -- evidently, you don't like and can't rationally and logically defend. Truth hurts.

 

--S.

[Kathlene]

End, you are a sick, lunatic who makes unsubstantiated claims, based on your own idiosyncratic interpretation of the bible and you use the supposed, voice of god -- to elevate yourself, above others, while wallowing in a false sense of comfort and a bogus sense of superiority.

 

A couple of things Scott and I doubt I will be visiting with you any more unless it just intrigues me. Just wanted to say again that I am genuinely sorry for the loss of your son and the immense suffering that he indured, and your family's suffering as well. I am also hoping the emptiness goes away but that the precious memories of your son's life live in you without fading.

 

I could give a shit. I'm not here for your pity. And how many times are you going to say you're sorry?

 

Again, tucking your tail between your legs and bailing.

 

What's the matter end?

 

You're all about the truth. And the truth of the matter is, you're a religious lunatic who makes unsubstantiated bullshit claims about god/jesus and I'm the relentless son-o-bitch who bluntly challenges (cutting to the chase, as it were) your bullshit, which -- evidently, you don't like and can't rationally and logically defend. Truth hurts.

 

--S.

 

Sconnor, who are you to tell End that his experiences are loopy or wrong or out of this world? Seriously, if this is End's life experience as he perceives it, and his reality, why are you tearing it apart? Are you walking in his shoes? seeing what he does? feeling what he does? I don't understand why because you haven't found comfort, that you could take away the experiences of one who does?

 

What exactly is your motive and point in grinding End down like this?

[Antlerman]

Which says this was something you were programmed with prior to your experience. It stands in your way now. The symbol's fine if it works for you. That you can't see past it, is a problem.

You need to explain how you feel Christ in my life is a problem. Please be blunt.

To be clear End, as I said in the other post I'm simply tacking a shift in tactic. I don't feel hostile nor intend any disrespect towards you in any way. Quite the contrary. Now to respond...

 

I've said many times I don't feel Christ in your life is a problem. A great many people in fact do benefit through Christ as an object of their faith; Christ as a symbol of God. I don't have issues with that. I've said that many times.

 

What you just did however was take what I did actually say, and make it some something else. I didn't say Christ is a problem in your life. I said that your taking all the doctrines associated with that symbol that you were programmed with - prior to any sort of transcendent encounter with the Divine, that did not come directly as a result of that, is where you are stuck at. Why do I keep asking you "What does your heart tell you?"

 

Negative. You don't live love by following rules. Period. Ever read your New Testament? That's in there. In fact, that's its basic gist. It comes from a changed heart. I'll explain...

I can't help but get pissed of from time to time...like after reading this type statement. What in the heck do you think the fulfillment of the law and Christ were for? Do you somehow think I am capable of fulfilling the Levitical Law? Is this what this ridiculous statement you have made is implying?

Ridiculous?

 

Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet,"

and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself." Love does no harm to its neighbor.

Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law

.

 

Ro. 13:10

 

What do you think the commandment to "love God and love your neighbor as yourself" is all about? What did Jesus say about it, you ask?

"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind." This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'

All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.

"

 

Mt. 22:36-40

 

Do you want to know what the term "Law and the Prophets" means? It means the entire Old Testament. It means in modern language, "The Bible". So on these two commandments hangs the entire Bible. Why? Because "love is the fulfilling of the law".

 

It starts from within you and moves out, like "rivers of living water". "Make clean the inside of the cup first".

 

Get it? Ridiculous, you say?

 

 

Triple, quadruple negative! "White washed sepulchers! All clean and white on the outside, but on the inside full of dead man's bones." If it doesn't begin from within to the outside, the inside of the cup clean first, then following rules is a sham. It's the path to self-righteousness. You don't clean the outside first, then the inside follows. You change the heart first, then the outside follows.

What commandments were you thinking? But let me share this, I damn sure think that if we were smart enough, or had adeqate insight, the OT and NT "law" would match.

See above.

 

And that explains the mystery of why so many of us say that now that we aren't bound by the imposed rules of the legalistic system of your "rules", we actually now genuinely love... and as a result by actions following that, fulfill all those rules naturally. We don't need to follow them. We naturally do them.

Horse hockey.

Why horse hockey? Do you reject my testimony? Do you think I bear a false witness? I can tell in all certainty that my spiritual fulfillment is being allowed to grow directly as a result of freeing myself from the bondage of religion and restricting ideas embodied in church dogma (or singular Biblical interpretations). If it works for you than that's good. I support you. But you won't support me. Why?

 

That is my point. You cannot see past your mental idea about God (mental in the sense of your thoughts and ideas, not mental as Sconner would use it).

 

You have to recognize spirit with spirit, not with your interpretations and dogmas. You hear with the ears of your heart. I can hear you. Can't you hear us?

 

And ironically, that most likely in that context applied to today, would be us separating from the family of those in the Churches in order to find salvation within us. Stepping out to find the truth in our hearts, and through that, to then love freely, like "rivers of living water". It comes from within. Not through conformity to rules. "Love is the fulfilling of the law". How? Explain that, then you'll begin to see the whole edifice of doctrines and laws fall like shadows hit with light.

 

A repulsive statement at best.

It offends you to consider that God is bigger than Christianity?

[Phanta]

You, Antlerman, had a divine, transcendent experience, and from that flowed your dedication to certain ideas.

 

You, End, practiced dedication to certain ideas, and that practice yielded a divine, transcendent experience.

 

Is this an accurate statement about yourself, respectively, gentlemen?

 

Phanta

[Vixentrox]

End, you are a sick, lunatic who makes unsubstantiated claims, based on your own idiosyncratic interpretation of the bible and you use the supposed, voice of god -- to elevate yourself, above others, while wallowing in a false sense of comfort and a bogus sense of superiority.

 

A couple of things Scott and I doubt I will be visiting with you any more unless it just intrigues me. Just wanted to say again that I am genuinely sorry for the loss of your son and the immense suffering that he indured, and your family's suffering as well. I am also hoping the emptiness goes away but that the precious memories of your son's life live in you without fading.

 

I could give a shit. I'm not here for your pity. And how many times are you going to say you're sorry?

 

Again, tucking your tail between your legs and bailing.

 

What's the matter end?

 

You're all about the truth. And the truth of the matter is, you're a religious lunatic who makes unsubstantiated bullshit claims about god/jesus and I'm the relentless son-o-bitch who bluntly challenges (cutting to the chase, as it were) your bullshit, which -- evidently, you don't like and can't rationally and logically defend. Truth hurts.

 

--S.

 

Sconnor, who are you to tell End that his experiences are loopy or wrong or out of this world? Seriously, if this is End's life experience as he perceives it, and his reality, why are you tearing it apart? Are you walking in his shoes? seeing what he does? feeling what he does? I don't understand why because you haven't found comfort, that you could take away the experiences of one who does?

 

What exactly is your motive and point in grinding End down like this?

Who are you to say a Christian that kill's their children because god told them to are wrong?

[Sconnor]

Sconnor, who are you to tell End that his experiences are loopy or wrong or out of this world?

 

Oh I'm sorry, last I checked this was an informal blog where people "tell" people things.....

 

Who are you to tell me: who are you to tell End that his experiences are loopy or wrong or out of this world?

 

See how that works?

 

Seriously, if this is End's life experience as he perceives it, and his reality, why are you tearing it apart?

 

Because he makes unsubstantiated delusional statements about god/jesus.

 

And as posted earlier in the thread:

 

"I'm sticking to my guns. It is a loopy belief.

 

Isn't end one of the lucky ones, who got a big supernatural hug from god. The creator of the infinite universe went out of his way, picking little ole' end -- one of god's special chosen ones -- to revel Himself, while god sat around with his thumb up his ass neglecting the rest of his earthly children, who suffered egregiously never to get the same understanding god so lovingly bestowed on end. (sarcasm)

 

It's a ridiculous belief that end uses as a supposed proof to substantiate his asinine and deluded arguments.

 

End is a deluded christian who erroneously attributed (without objective evidence) an "experience" to a divine hand, nothing but the product of emotion, imagination and rationalization, which would have a reasonable real-life explanation."

 

And then with great obtuseness, end tells us he knows god -- that he knows the character and will of god and how he works in this world. And he knows how to aquire comfort with relgious claptrap. It's an outlandish, crazy-ass reality that he delusionally constructed, which he can NOT substantiate.

 

Are you walking in his shoes? seeing what he does? feeling what he does?

 

Nope and that is irrelevant. I am solely attacking the unsubstantiated deluded assertions he has made here on this thread about his cosmic buddy jeeeeesus.

 

I don't understand why because you haven't found comfort, that you could take away the experiences of one who does?

 

I want to make this perfectly clear, because now you are in ends territory, by making false allegations, you simply pulled out of your ass. My intention was NEVER to take away ends experience or illusion of comfort and it is most certainly NOT because I haven't found comfort. Back the F off with these bullshit jr. psych claims.

 

Furthermore, I wouldn't even consider it possible to take away someones experience or someone's sense of comfort. It's a ridiculous assumption on your part. Please, completely understand this and commit it to memory, for future reference.

 

With this being said, I could give a shit what ends reality is. In other words if he want to run around on all fours, naked, howling at the moon-god -- fine; knock himself out; go for it. But it doesn't mean I have to respect it. I can most assuredly have the opinion that they are a raving lunatics, and/or ignorant fools and I'm not going to hold back making my assertions known.

 

These are deluded christians -- like end -- who makes extraordinary claims they can NOT substantiate, which means they are the equivalent of a scientolgist who makes the crazy-ass claim that humans have been possessed by aliens called Thetans or they are the equivalent of an insane man who claims people from the government (he can only see) are using him to decipher documents to save the world. The deluded christian and the insane examples, above are the same -- they make insane, outlandish bullshit claims they can NOT substantiate.

 

Again, I have absolutely NO respect for the delusional christian and the morbidly ignorant. They vomit up bullshit claims they can't possibly substantiate and they do so with a bogus sense of authority and arrogance.

 

What exactly is your motive and point in grinding End down like this?

 

What does it matter? I'm still going to continue to challenge and offer my biting assessments.

 

You can use your deluded assumptive mind to make shit up all day long as to why I choose to bust a deluded christians chops and I'll still come at him.

 

I could be doing this because it's fun to chew up whack-job christians and point out their gaps of logic and mental deficiencies.

 

I could be doing this because I like to point out the irrational and illogical in peoples arguments.

 

I could be fighting crazy with crazy.

 

I could be hammering away at christians, holding their feet to the hot coals, so they can present objective evidence that a god exists.

 

And on and on and on.......

 

What I completely abhor though, is religionist using their idiosyncratic interpretation of scripture and the supposed voice of god -- as their own -- to verify their warped reality. So I will continue to offer my blunt assessments and challenges. Too bad so sad.

 

--S.

[Antlerman]

You, Antlerman, had a divine, transcendent experience, and from that flowed your dedication to certain ideas.

 

You, End, practiced dedication to certain ideas, and that practice yielded a divine, transcendent experience.

 

Is this an accurate statement about yourself, respectively, gentlemen?

 

Phanta

In the simplest of possible terms, yes. Although instead of saying ideas, I'd say more ideals. There is a subtle, yet profound difference between the two. I am married to the ideals, but never will allow myself to be married to ideas. Marriage to ideas can easily lead to the denial of the ideals in the ensuing actions to defend those ideas against other ideas.

 

And that, in a nutshell, defines the entire conflict between the legitimate use religious symbols leading to denying the value of them in the act of placing the ideas above the ideals. When my idea of God becomes the only idea, then that is idolatry.

 

The question I hear here is can someone through observance of religious ideas, observance to rules and forms, achieve spiritual enlightenment as a direct response to those? I question that, but can entertain a discussion of it. Did End's experience come as a direct result of those practices, or did it "transcend" those forms?

[Shyone]

You, Antlerman, had a divine, transcendent experience, and from that flowed your dedication to certain ideas.

 

You, End, practiced dedication to certain ideas, and that practice yielded a divine, transcendent experience.

 

Is this an accurate statement about yourself, respectively, gentlemen?

 

Phanta

I won't write anything sarcastic, I won't write anything sarcastic, I won't write anything sarcastic...

[Antlerman]

You, Antlerman, had a divine, transcendent experience, and from that flowed your dedication to certain ideas.

 

You, End, practiced dedication to certain ideas, and that practice yielded a divine, transcendent experience.

 

Is this an accurate statement about yourself, respectively, gentlemen?

 

Phanta

I won't write anything sarcastic, I won't write anything sarcastic, I won't write anything sarcastic...

You just did.

 

BTW, the term Divine is itself a symbol.