Question For Christians About Biblical Inerrancy

[Guest end3]

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

 

Pretty much P

[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

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.

 

Can you explain your understanding of "ideas" and "ideals"? (I'm interested).

 

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?

 

My post didn't go there, but I was pondering this on my own, AM, and have been for some time. I also ask it as, "Can someone achieve spiritual enlightenment without..." those things you mention.

 

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?

 

It is an interesting discussion for me to watch, not having had a transcendent experience. I am a believer in mind-training (though evidence suggests that the same thing does NOT inevitably manifest from that training for all people across the board). It seems as though End's spiritual practice has helped him to transcendence. But some have the experience seemingly spontaneously, and some through very different spiritual paths. Same fruit, dramatically different ideas and practices and paths.

 

Ok, I'm done making edits now.

 

Phanta

[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

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.

 

Every word you write is a symbol!

 

P

[Guest end3]

He discards the Idea of Christianity for his ideal, that which is his experience and ongoing condition of his discerning heart. With that, the basic experiences are the same and also the path mostly, but the credit to the author of the experience is what is in question. Christianity confirms an Author and story...and as the Pastor pointed out if I remember, the authority for his story plays a role.

 

He says he is a part of a larger whole, but must claim perfect congruency with the larger whole in order to equate the "part of" to his ownership of the Ideal. In other words, he says the ideal came from within him...which might be a misunderstanding of language on my part, but he mostly makes it sound like the experience was from him, not from an outside source.

 

Christianity says we are are "part of", but give Christ the perfection and the sovereignty to dole out the experience to whomever He wishes. I am only claiming glimpses of congruency, as it is a lifelong learning process by and through Christ.

 

Vain stubborness on his part.

[Phanta]

He discards the Idea of Christianity for his ideal, that which is his experience and ongoing condition of his discerning heart. With that, the basic experiences are the same and also the path mostly, but the credit to the author of the experience is what is in question.

 

Do you agree, AM, that the basic experiences are the same?

 

Do you agree, AM, that the core path is the same?

 

Are you in dispute primarily over the author of the experience?

 

Christianity confirms an Author and story...and as the Pastor pointed out if I remember, the authority for his story plays a role.

 

End: Who is "Christianity"? Please describe this thing, "Christianity", that is doing the action of "confirming"?

 

The Author plays a role in the experience? What is it? An author writes a story. The characters do not write the story. They are puppets to the author. Is AM a character? Is he a co-author?

 

He says he is a part of a larger whole, but must claim perfect congruency with the larger whole in order to equate the "part of" to his ownership of the Ideal.

 

He can't author the ideal unless he is himself perfect. Yes?

 

In other words, he says the ideal came from within him

 

Is this right, AM? Is this your position? Did you create your ideal?

 

...which might be a misunderstanding of language on my part

 

Let's find out if there is a misunderstanding.

 

but he mostly makes it sound like the experience was from him, not from an outside source.

 

AM? Does this sound like what you believe?

 

Christianity says we are are part of, but give Christ the perfection....

 

Christianity says we are a part of.....what? You're missing a key word there: the thing we're part of. Help?

 

I am only claiming glimpses of congruency, as it is a lifelong learning process.

 

Congruity to what?

 

Vain stubborness on his part.

 

Snooty judgmentalism on yours. Now you're both human.

 

Phanta

[Phanta]

Phanta,

 

If you feel like you have a profound statement that will help me, I would be happy to hear that......in a very direct statement.....Like "End, here is your problem the way I see it:". I read your post at least twice, and can't see that it says anything other than what I conveyed to you.

 

So, you feel like I understood your position from your perspective?

 

Phanta

[Sconnor]

He discards the Idea of Christianity for his ideal, that which is his experience and ongoing condition of his discerning heart. With that, the basic experiences are the same and also the path mostly, but the credit to the author of the experience is what is in question. Christianity confirms an Author and story...and as the Pastor pointed out if I remember, the authority for his story plays a role.

 

He says he is a part of a larger whole, but must claim perfect congruency with the larger whole in order to equate the "part of" to his ownership of the Ideal. In other words, he says the ideal came from within him...which might be a misunderstanding of language on my part, but he mostly makes it sound like the experience was from him, not from an outside source.

 

Christianity says we are are "part of", but give Christ the perfection and the sovereignty to dole out the experience to whomever He wishes. I am only claiming glimpses of congruency, as it is a lifelong learning process by and through Christ.

 

Vain stubborness on his part.

 

Christianity confirms an Author and story...?

 

BAWHAHAHWHAHWHAHhahahah, ha, ha, ha.

 

Confirms?

 

bullshit!

 

You believe in an unsubstantiated invisible omni-present personal christian god and your own idiosyncratic interpretation of the bible because of FAITH. Faith meaning -- believing in something that doesn't have objective evidence or is contrary to the supposed evidences (although you say you have evidence -- you simply settle for the flimsiest of supposed evidences such as bloated rationalizations, subjective reasoning and stunted imaginings.

 

You have NO confirmation of an Author -- Capital(A) god.

 

Furthermore, you do NOT have confirmation that the story of Jesus is the resurrected son of god, savior of mankind, as opposed to just a piece of fiction; based on perhaps a fallible human prophet an/or an amalgamation of several people and several earlier legends and myths.

 

BTW, defend yourself, end. You have much to explain from my posts #1409, #1410 & #1412.

 

Your infantile reluctance to answer them is an admission that you can NOT maintain your outlandish claims and arguments.

 

--S.

[Sconnor]

Phanta,

 

If you feel like you have a profound statement that will help me, I would be happy to hear that......in a (very direct) statement.....Like "End, here is your problem the way I see it:". I read your post at least twice, and can't see that it says anything other than what I conveyed to you.

 

I'll give it a shot.

 

"End, here is your problem the way I see it:": 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.

 

Direct enough?

 

--S.

[NotBlinded]

He discards the Idea of Christianity for his ideal, that which is his experience and ongoing condition of his discerning heart. With that, the basic experiences are the same and also the path mostly, but the credit to the author of the experience is what is in question. Christianity confirms an Author and story...and as the Pastor pointed out if I remember, the authority for his story plays a role.

 

He says he is a part of a larger whole, but must claim perfect congruency with the larger whole in order to equate the "part of" to his ownership of the Ideal. In other words, he says the ideal came from within him...which might be a misunderstanding of language on my part, but he mostly makes it sound like the experience was from him, not from an outside source.

 

Christianity says we are are "part of", but give Christ the perfection and the sovereignty to dole out the experience to whomever He wishes. I am only claiming glimpses of congruency, as it is a lifelong learning process by and through Christ.

 

Vain stubborness on his part.

End, I think you need to understand what myself and AM consider "ourselves" to be. This is where you are having a problem because you see yourself as a subject in a book with God being the Author. Now, with this view in your mind, when we say it came from within us, you automatically assume that we, as subjects, are stepping on the toes of the Author. You have to switch away from that autocratic view in order to understand what is meant by, "it comes from within." Look at it as God being a very part of us in which "In Him we live and move and have our being". With this view, it is not vain at all because there is no us existing apart from the Author. There is no separation between within and without.

 

As a side note: Not all of Christianity sees God as an outside agent. There are several very early mystics. It is there in the bible itself.

[bdp]

For someone who's under direct orders from his god not to judge, end does an awful lot of judging.

[Antlerman]

He discards the Idea of Christianity for his ideal, that which is his experience and ongoing condition of his discerning heart. With that, the basic experiences are the same and also the path mostly, but the credit to the author of the experience is what is in question.

 

Do you agree, AM, that the basic experiences are the same?

It is of the same essence, though it is seen and understood differently.

Do you agree, AM, that the core path is the same?

Not sure what you mean. I would say that access to that is in similar ways, if you look behind the specific dressings each system uses. It leads to same end.

 

Are you in dispute primarily over the author of the experience?

I am in dispute of anyone claiming ownership of an idea of it that trumps any other idea of it. At which point they are looking at their idea, not IT.

 

To me, I'd say the "author", to use that highly charged anthropomorphic term is in fact the same. I would say rather that source, that ground. That removes it from Bible speak and the implication of it being exclusively the Christian idea of God. I reject that this means an acknowledgment of their idea as being exclusively representative of God to the exclusion of all others. "That" transcends their idea, and any idea that I might possibly have. But I will acknowledge that their idea is a symbol of "That". And no symbol is complete, or definitive. Even God is a symbol of God.

 

In other words, he says the ideal came from within him

 

Is this right, AM? Is this your position? Did you create your ideal?

Of course not. Yet End can't wrap his mind around this relationship. We participate in it. Right there, in the phrase, it says it all. We = meaning what is in me, you, and us; participate = from within us with each other and with the universe interacting, influences, giving, taking, sharing, growing, etc both to an from us; in it = the entire Universe, everything, material, emotional, spiritual, mental, past, present, future, etc, etc, etc, ad infinitum.

 

It's like asking me if I created Nature. But is Nature in me? You betcha.

 

(continued)

[Antlerman]

...which might be a misunderstanding of language on my part

 

Let's find out if there is a misunderstanding.

I'd call it a mental block to understanding.

 

but he mostly makes it sound like the experience was from him, not from an outside source.

 

AM? Does this sound like what you believe?

To use the Biblical language for the sake of communication, "In Him we live and move and have our being". Does that saying sound like it's an exclusively external thing, or a participation of inner and outer experience?

 

When I say it comes from within, that is to acknowledge our participation of it. It comes up from inside us in the experience of it. It is in us, and surrounding us. I have never once claimed myself as Source. Nor have I ever made it entirely outside us. That perception is a creation of a dualistic understanding. It is both without and within, and within is without, and at the end, there is no with or without, nor any thing, no subject/object, but simply IS. From One to many, from many to One.

 

Vain stubborness on his part.

 

Snooty judgmentalism on yours. Now you're both human.

 

Phanta

Oh, I won't accept being called vain and stubborn. I think the problem is a lack of grasping what I mean and his interpretation of it as something he can relate to.

 

If I was vain and stubborn, I wouldn't even try to communicate with you End. I'm making considerable effort here.

[Sconnor]

For someone who's under direct orders from his god not to judge, end does an awful lot of judging.

 

Yep and additionally, bible-god says -- consider your own faults rather than criticizing others, don't be a hypocrite or rebellious, but be meek and humble and turn the other cheek.

 

Matthew 7:3-5 Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

 

Matthew 7:12 Treat others as you want them to treat you. This is what the Law and the Prophets are all about.

 

Luke 6:37 Don't judge others, and God won't judge you. Don't be hard on others, and God won't be hard on you. Forgive others, and God will forgive you.

 

Romans 12:19 Dear friends, don't try to get even. Let God take revenge.

 

Philippians 2:3-4 Don't be jealous or proud, but be humble and consider others more important than yourselves. Care about them as much as you care about yourselves

 

Colossians 3:12-13 God loves you and has chosen you as his own special people. So be gentle, kind, humble, meek, and patient.

 

Titus 3:1-2 Remind your people to obey the rulers and authorities and not to be rebellious. They must always be ready to do something helpful and not say cruel things or argue. They should be gentle and kind to everyone.

 

Matthew 5:39 But I tell you not to try to get even with a person who has done something to you. When someone slaps your right cheek, turn and let that person slap your other cheek.

 

The bible is a hodgepodge of ideas; a virtual grab-bag, where anyone can pick and choose, making it mean whatever they want it to mean, so they can support ANY deluded agenda they want.

 

Of course end won't abide by these rules from his holy authority OR he'll rationalize them awaaaaaay.

 

--S.

[Guest end3]

I appreciate the efforts Phanta, but there is a difference...just ask AM and NB. They want me to accept that the "larger god" may certainly be what I perceive as Christ, but they are then unwilling to accept that Christ is the "larger god". That is a very distinct condition. Just ask them. And that's why they think that I can't love to some better degree or will "continue to have a problem" if I can't get past this.

 

No biggie, just is.

[Phanta]

For someone who's under direct orders from his god not to judge, end does an awful lot of judging.

 

Yep and additionally, bible-god says -- consider your own faults rather than criticizing others, don't be a hypocrite or rebellious, but be meek and humble and turn the other cheek.

 

Matthew 7:3-5 Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

 

Matthew 7:12 Treat others as you want them to treat you. This is what the Law and the Prophets are all about.

 

Luke 6:37 Don't judge others, and God won't judge you. Don't be hard on others, and God won't be hard on you. Forgive others, and God will forgive you.

 

Romans 12:19 Dear friends, don't try to get even. Let God take revenge.

 

Philippians 2:3-4 Don't be jealous or proud, but be humble and consider others more important than yourselves. Care about them as much as you care about yourselves

 

Colossians 3:12-13 God loves you and has chosen you as his own special people. So be gentle, kind, humble, meek, and patient.

 

Titus 3:1-2 Remind your people to obey the rulers and authorities and not to be rebellious. They must always be ready to do something helpful and not say cruel things or argue. They should be gentle and kind to everyone.

 

Matthew 5:39 But I tell you not to try to get even with a person who has done something to you. When someone slaps your right cheek, turn and let that person slap your other cheek.

 

Oh, some of that is nice.

 

I read more Bible here than when I was traveling the Christian circles. Sometimes it surprises me with its decency.

 

Too bad about the wicked, evil God.

 

The bible is a hodgepodge of ideas; a virtual grab-bag, where anyone can pick and choose, making it mean whatever they want it to mean, so they can support ANY deluded agenda they want.

 

Seems it.

 

Of course end won't abide by these rules from his holy authority OR he'll rationalize them awaaaaaay.

 

I've seen End try to orient himself thus, then mark and own his failures. You're surely a special challenge to his particular person. He is first and foremost human, after all.

 

Phanta

[Phanta]

I appreciate the efforts Phanta, but there is a difference...just ask AM and NB. They want me to accept that the "larger god" may certainly be what I perceive as Christ, but they are then unwilling to accept that Christ is the "larger god". That is a very distinct condition.

 

It is. It also seems like they still aren't satisfied that you understand their position as they understand it, regardless of whether you agree with it or not. The idea isn't to make you all the same (to avoid difference), it's to be clear about what is true for each person and have that understanding all around. Only when we are clear on what the differences actually are can we talk about them in openness. And that's if open discussion is something all participants want. If someone wants to change someone else, or isn't interested in being truly open themselves, it will color the dialogue.

 

Just ask them. And that's why they think that I can't love to some better degree or will "continue to have a problem" if I can't get past this.

 

I hear the same thing from you, End, about them. About me. It doesn't feel any better on the other end of it. It's not any more functional. I hear the same thing from most other Christians who feel the need to proclaim their Christianity and "witness". In my view, that sucks. And it's not functional.

 

No biggie, just is.

 

So it is. So, why talk? Why share?

 

Phanta

[Guest end3]

The bible is a hodgepodge of ideas; a virtual grab-bag, where anyone can pick and choose, making it mean whatever they want it to mean, so they can support ANY deluded agenda they want.

Or it is written to reveal itself to people in many different situations....

[NotBlinded]

I appreciate the efforts Phanta, but there is a difference...just ask AM and NB. They want me to accept that the "larger god" may certainly be what I perceive as Christ, but they are then unwilling to accept that Christ is the "larger god". That is a very distinct condition. Just ask them. And that's why they think that I can't love to some better degree or will "continue to have a problem" if I can't get past this.

 

No biggie, just is.

End, I just don't know what to say anymore. I wish there were some words I could use that would allow you to understand. I really do.

 

When you put those two thoughts together as you have above, you are confusing the categories of dualistic and non-dualistic when we speak. When we say that God can be seen in Christ, we are talking about the person Jesus just as the Divine can be seen in everyone - non-dualistically. Now, when you say that we are unwilling to accept that Christ is the larger God, you are understanding us as speaking dualistically as if God and Christ are one as being distinct and apart from everyone and anything else. This is the view we are unwilling to accept. This is where Christ becomes an idol...an object of worship because he is seen as God apart or the Author. The symbol of Christ (what he represents) is mistaken for God in a dualistic manner.

 

Oh God, I wish I could say that better. Once God is seen in Jesus (non-dualistically), the person is no longer Divine in the sense of being set apart from others. This way the symbol shatters and Divinity is what is left.

 

End, do you remember me telling you about my experience? I said the contradictions disappear? This is where those contradictions are seen. They appear to be such because of the way you are looking at it. Your perspective must switch from dualism to nondualism and they will disappear.

[bdp]

The bible is a hodgepodge of ideas; a virtual grab-bag, where anyone can pick and choose, making it mean whatever they want it to mean, so they can support ANY deluded agenda they want.

Or it is written to reveal itself to people in many different situations....

 

like 'Watership Down.'

[Guest end3]

I appreciate the efforts Phanta, but there is a difference...just ask AM and NB. They want me to accept that the "larger god" may certainly be what I perceive as Christ, but they are then unwilling to accept that Christ is the "larger god". That is a very distinct condition.

 

It is. It also seems like they still aren't satisfied that you understand their position as they understand it, regardless of whether you agree with it or not. The idea isn't to make you all the same (to avoid difference), it's to be clear about what is true for each person and have that understanding all around. Only when we are clear on what the differences actually are can we talk about them in openness. And that's if open discussion is something all participants want. If someone wants to change someone else, or isn't interested in being truly open themselves, it will color the dialogue.

 

Just ask them. And that's why they think that I can't love to some better degree or will "continue to have a problem" if I can't get past this.

 

I hear the same thing from you, End, about them. About me. It doesn't feel any better on the other end of it. It's not any more functional. I hear the same thing from most other Christians who feel the need to proclaim their Christianity and "witness". In my view, that sucks. And it's not functional.

 

No biggie, just is.

 

So it is. So, why talk? Why share?

 

Phanta

 

I just find it interesting that the Bible has an answer for this particular. If you are uncomfortable, then it's not me, it's the fact that you reject the understanding. I like y'all just fine...probably consider y'all more friends than some of the immediate "friends" I have.

 

Luk 6:22 Blessed are you when men hate you, when they exclude you and insult you and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man.

Luk 6:27 "But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you,

Luk 21:17 All men will hate you because of me.

[Guest end3]

I appreciate the efforts Phanta, but there is a difference...just ask AM and NB. They want me to accept that the "larger god" may certainly be what I perceive as Christ, but they are then unwilling to accept that Christ is the "larger god". That is a very distinct condition. Just ask them. And that's why they think that I can't love to some better degree or will "continue to have a problem" if I can't get past this.

 

No biggie, just is.

End, I just don't know what to say anymore. I wish there were some words I could use that would allow you to understand. I really do.

 

When you put those two thoughts together as you have above, you are confusing the categories of dualistic and non-dualistic when we speak. When we say that God can be seen in Christ, we are talking about the person Jesus just as the Divine can be seen in everyone - non-dualistically. Now, when you say that we are unwilling to accept that Christ is the larger God, you are understanding us as speaking dualistically as if God and Christ are one as being distinct and apart from everyone and anything else. This is the view we are unwilling to accept. This is where Christ becomes an idol...an object of worship because he is seen as God apart or the Author. The symbol of Christ (what he represents) is mistaken for God in a dualistic manner.

 

Oh God, I wish I could say that better. Once God is seen in Jesus (non-dualistically), the person is no longer Divine in the sense of being set apart from others. This way the symbol shatters and Divinity is what is left.

 

That's fine Sandy, I feel like I understand that, but I believe the bolded view.

[Shyone]

The bible is a hodgepodge of ideas; a virtual grab-bag, where anyone can pick and choose, making it mean whatever they want it to mean, so they can support ANY deluded agenda they want.

Or it is written to reveal itself to people in many different situations....

Like Astrology! Or that 8 ball thingy!

 

No wonder horoscopes are so popular.

 

My Chinese character is dead on, I'll tell you. But it's not supposed to go well with my wife's chinese sign. Should I leave her?

[Phanta]

I appreciate the efforts Phanta, but there is a difference...just ask AM and NB. They want me to accept that the "larger god" may certainly be what I perceive as Christ, but they are then unwilling to accept that Christ is the "larger god". That is a very distinct condition.

 

It is. It also seems like they still aren't satisfied that you understand their position as they understand it, regardless of whether you agree with it or not. The idea isn't to make you all the same (to avoid difference), it's to be clear about what is true for each person and have that understanding all around. Only when we are clear on what the differences actually are can we talk about them in openness. And that's if open discussion is something all participants want. If someone wants to change someone else, or isn't interested in being truly open themselves, it will color the dialogue.

 

Just ask them. And that's why they think that I can't love to some better degree or will "continue to have a problem" if I can't get past this.

 

I hear the same thing from you, End, about them. About me. It doesn't feel any better on the other end of it. It's not any more functional. I hear the same thing from most other Christians who feel the need to proclaim their Christianity and "witness". In my view, that sucks. And it's not functional.

 

No biggie, just is.

 

So it is. So, why talk? Why share?

 

Phanta

 

I just find it interesting that the Bible has an answer for this particular. If you are uncomfortable, then it's not me, it's the fact that you reject the understanding. I like y'all just fine...probably consider y'all more friends than some of the immediate "friends" I have.

 

Luk 6:22 Blessed are you when men hate you, when they exclude you and insult you and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man.

Luk 6:27 "But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you,

Luk 21:17 All men will hate you because of me.

 

Which thing in particular that I said are you addressing with this Bible passage?

 

Phanta

[NotBlinded]

I appreciate the efforts Phanta, but there is a difference...just ask AM and NB. They want me to accept that the "larger god" may certainly be what I perceive as Christ, but they are then unwilling to accept that Christ is the "larger god". That is a very distinct condition. Just ask them. And that's why they think that I can't love to some better degree or will "continue to have a problem" if I can't get past this.

 

No biggie, just is.

End, I just don't know what to say anymore. I wish there were some words I could use that would allow you to understand. I really do.

 

When you put those two thoughts together as you have above, you are confusing the categories of dualistic and non-dualistic when we speak. When we say that God can be seen in Christ, we are talking about the person Jesus just as the Divine can be seen in everyone - non-dualistically. Now, when you say that we are unwilling to accept that Christ is the larger God, you are understanding us as speaking dualistically as if God and Christ are one as being distinct and apart from everyone and anything else. This is the view we are unwilling to accept. This is where Christ becomes an idol...an object of worship because he is seen as God apart or the Author. The symbol of Christ (what he represents) is mistaken for God in a dualistic manner.

 

Oh God, I wish I could say that better. Once God is seen in Jesus (non-dualistically), the person is no longer Divine in the sense of being set apart from others. This way the symbol shatters and Divinity is what is left.

 

That's fine Sandy, I feel like I understand that, but I believe the bolded view.

Okay, that is all I can ask from you...understanding.

[Guest end3]

The bible is a hodgepodge of ideas; a virtual grab-bag, where anyone can pick and choose, making it mean whatever they want it to mean, so they can support ANY deluded agenda they want.

Or it is written to reveal itself to people in many different situations....

Like Astrology! Or that 8 ball thingy!

 

No wonder horoscopes are so popular.

 

My Chinese character is dead on, I'll tell you. But it's not supposed to go well with my wife's chinese sign. Should I leave her?

 

or chould it be that God set the stars and men look to them for understanding?