Im A Christian Again

[Guest end3]

 

 

yeah, how do you think Justna felt.....oh, never mind, you didn't.

 

Fuck you, asshole.

hey Kyle...good to see you too.

 

Blow me.

I can just feel the love.

 

love is kyle's middle name.....he just doesn't know it yet

[Sconnor]

So when you say that the writings are sexist, I am of the opinion that you are missing the intent of the relationship between man and woman as God has defined.

 

And I am of the opinion that you are cherry picking.

 

Opinions aside: the fact of the matter – end is cherry picking.

 

In fact, that is what all Christians do to rationalize their own idiosyncratic beliefs.

 

That’s why Catholicism doesn’t allow women priests.

That is why evangelicals keep women out of authority positions in the church.

That is why some Christian denominations propagate women as subservient.

That is why polygamy is a way of life at the FLDS church.

That’s the ideology that makes it possible for women to be brainwashed and held against their will in Mormon sects.

That is why men burned women at stakes.

Etc. etc. etc.

 

And they all go to their bible for their marching orders.

 

And from their own particular interpretation from the bible, they ALL rationalize its god’s will.

 

Just like you do, end -- when you make unsubstantiated, outrageous claims about god’s character and will.

 

That's why end has no credibility.

 

--S.

 

All you have listed is transient "truths" Scott...truths at the time.

 

Regardless, those “truths” and your supposed “truths” are constructed in the same way – by rationalizing spurious scripture to fit your warped world-view and then make the outrageous claim it came from god.

 

--S.

 

I agree as I do make judgements about scripture I don't fully understand....which could be transient. But those are not the ones I am making my stand on. Love never fails, grace, and love for your brother. Refute those if you wish to carry on Scott.

 

I would love to refute it but – as usual – your argument is cryptic.

 

"Love never fails, grace, and love for your brother."

 

What the hell does this even mean?

 

Is this even a complete sentence?

 

How does it relate to the bible and your imaginary god’s plan?

 

And isn't it odd, That the ones who make proclamations about god’s will and character -- ALL claim they understand the scripture they are using to support their particular world-view?

 

And please provide a defintion for transient – the way you are using it contextually.

 

--S.

[Dibllsmek]

yeah, how do you think Justna felt.....oh, never mind, you didn't.

The only reason she felt bad because she really never deconverted. She thought she did, but what she did was rebellion. She didn't like her life so she did the opposite. A deconvert doesn't just decide to leave, its made up of many big steps.

 

I think I can say this of all deconverts. Once we deconvert, we can't reconvert. Thats what I'm like, I tried. I can't cram God back into my brain. My brains like "Damn, That shit is wack!" and throws it right out of my brain. No "true" deconvert can reconvert because its not possible.

 

Sure I'm just a child, but the earlier it happens, the more you learn. Your not stuck looking at everything being two dimensional, once someone glimpses the Third dimension they won't be satisfied with 2d.

[Guest end3]

So when you say that the writings are sexist, I am of the opinion that you are missing the intent of the relationship between man and woman as God has defined.

 

And I am of the opinion that you are cherry picking.

 

Opinions aside: the fact of the matter – end is cherry picking.

 

In fact, that is what all Christians do to rationalize their own idiosyncratic beliefs.

 

That’s why Catholicism doesn’t allow women priests.

That is why evangelicals keep women out of authority positions in the church.

That is why some Christian denominations propagate women as subservient.

That is why polygamy is a way of life at the FLDS church.

That’s the ideology that makes it possible for women to be brainwashed and held against their will in Mormon sects.

That is why men burned women at stakes.

Etc. etc. etc.

 

And they all go to their bible for their marching orders.

 

And from their own particular interpretation from the bible, they ALL rationalize its god’s will.

 

Just like you do, end -- when you make unsubstantiated, outrageous claims about god’s character and will.

 

That's why end has no credibility.

 

--S.

 

All you have listed is transient "truths" Scott...truths at the time.

 

Regardless, those “truths” and your supposed “truths” are constructed in the same way – by rationalizing spurious scripture to fit your warped world-view and then make the outrageous claim it came from god.

 

--S.

 

I agree as I do make judgements about scripture I don't fully understand....which could be transient. But those are not the ones I am making my stand on. Love never fails, grace, and love for your brother. Refute those if you wish to carry on Scott.

 

I would love to refute it but – as usual – your argument is cryptic.

 

"Love never fails, grace, and love for your brother."

 

What the hell does this even mean?

 

Is this even a complete sentence?

 

How does it relate to the bible and your imaginary god’s plan?

 

And isn't it odd, That the ones who make proclamations about god’s will and character -- ALL claim they understand the scripture they are using to support their particular world-view?

 

And please provide a defintion for transient – the way you are using it contextually.

 

--S.

 

 

Gheez Scott, it ain't that hard....Love never fails.....give me an example of how love or grace fail in the context of the good news, die to self, Jesus message.

 

Transient....temporary in nature....give or take a few 100 years.

[Guest end3]

yeah, how do you think Justna felt.....oh, never mind, you didn't.

The only reason she felt bad because she really never deconverted. She thought she did, but what she did was rebellion. She didn't like her life so she did the opposite. A deconvert doesn't just decide to leave, its made up of many big steps.

 

I think I can say this of all deconverts. Once we deconvert, we can't reconvert. Thats what I'm like, I tried. I can't cram God back into my brain. My brains like "Damn, That shit is wack!" and throws it right out of my brain. No "true" deconvert can reconvert because its not possible.

 

Sure I'm just a child, but the earlier it happens, the more you learn. Your not stuck looking at everything being two dimensional, once someone glimpses the Third dimension they won't be satisfied with 2d.

 

I'll quit picking on you being a "yout" an all. I don't see it like that. We can hold to a theory, so why not hold to faith?

[oddbird1963]

I would love to refute it but – as usual – your argument is cryptic.

 

"Love never fails, grace, and love for your brother."

 

What the hell does this even mean?

 

Is this even a complete sentence?

 

How does it relate to the bible and your imaginary god’s plan?

 

And isn't it odd, That the ones who make proclamations about god’s will and character -- ALL claim they understand the scripture they are using to support their particular world-view?

 

And please provide a defintion for transient – the way you are using it contextually.

 

--S.

sconnor,

 

It seems that end has retreated to an allegorical method of scripture interpretation which is a method used in the dark ages and was taken to excess so much that during the protestant reformation and afterward it was abandoned.

 

It allows the believer to indulge their speculative imagination and interpret any passage any way they want. And that is what end appears to be doing. The "plain sense" (what he seems to be calling 'transient' truth) is often painful to deal with or embarrassing to take seriously. So, a more "spiritual" or "eternal" meaning is sought. The allegorical interpretation is usually plucked out of thin air by the interpreter of a passage.

 

Allegory as a literary device is used in the Bible But the fact that allegory is being used is evident from the surrounding text (context). If there are no indicators from within the text that allegory is being used, any application of symbolism to "christ" or "the church" or "purity" is just plain imagination with no grounding in reality.

 

Here's an excerpt from Encyclopedia Britannica, Micropedia, Volume I. (Chicago, Illinois: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1976), p. 252.

 

allegorical interpretation, biblical, a hermeneutical (interpretive) method used to uncover hidden or symbolic meanings of a biblical text. Rooted in the techniques developed by Greek thinkers who attempted to overcome the problems posed by literal interpretations of ancient Greek myths, the allegorical method was further developed by Jewish scholars, such as Philo of Alexandria in the 1st century AD, and Christian thinkers, such as Clement and Origen of Alexandria in the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD. Though other methods of biblical interpretation were often used, the allegorical method was dominant until late medieval times. The Protestant Reformation of the 16th century rejected, for the most part, the allegorical method and returned to the more literal interpretation of the Bible.

 

The allegorical method attempts to overcome the difficulties of morally perplexing biblical passages and to harmonize them with certain traditions and accepted teachings of the synagogue or the church. By assigning to each feature of a text a hidden, symbolic, or mystical meaning beyond the primary meaning that the words convey in their literal sense, the allegorical interpretation seeks to make that text more comprehensible, acceptable, and relevant to the present. . . .

 

Though there are explicit allegories in the Bible, such as the allegory of old age in Eccles. 12:1–7 and the parable of the sower in Mark 4:1–9, the allegorical method as it was developed in the post-biblical times allowed an interpreter great latitude for subjective speculation without providing means for critical evaluation of the postulated meanings of the text.

[Guest I Love Dog]

I would love to refute it but – as usual – your argument is cryptic.

 

"Love never fails, grace, and love for your brother."

 

What the hell does this even mean?

 

Is this even a complete sentence?

 

How does it relate to the bible and your imaginary god’s plan?

 

And isn't it odd, That the ones who make proclamations about god’s will and character -- ALL claim they understand the scripture they are using to support their particular world-view?

 

And please provide a defintion for transient – the way you are using it contextually.

 

--S.

sconnor,

 

It seems that end has retreated to an allegorical method of scripture interpretation which is a method used in the dark ages and was taken to excess so much that during the protestant reformation and afterward it was abandoned.

 

It allows the believer to indulge their speculative imagination and interpret any passage any way they want. And that is what end appears to be doing. The "plain sense" (what he seems to be calling 'transient' truth) is often painful to deal with or embarrassing to take seriously. So, a more "spiritual" or "eternal" meaning is sought. The allegorical interpretation is usually plucked out of thin air by the interpreter of a passage.

 

Allegory as a literary device is used in the Bible But the fact that allegory is being used is evident from the surrounding text (context). If there are no indicators from within the text that allegory is being used, any application of symbolism to "christ" or "the church" or "purity" is just plain imagination with no grounding in reality.

 

Here's an excerpt from Encyclopedia Britannica, Micropedia, Volume I. (Chicago, Illinois: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1976), p. 252.

 

allegorical interpretation, biblical, a hermeneutical (interpretive) method used to uncover hidden or symbolic meanings of a biblical text. Rooted in the techniques developed by Greek thinkers who attempted to overcome the problems posed by literal interpretations of ancient Greek myths, the allegorical method was further developed by Jewish scholars, such as Philo of Alexandria in the 1st century AD, and Christian thinkers, such as Clement and Origen of Alexandria in the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD. Though other methods of biblical interpretation were often used, the allegorical method was dominant until late medieval times. The Protestant Reformation of the 16th century rejected, for the most part, the allegorical method and returned to the more literal interpretation of the Bible.

 

The allegorical method attempts to overcome the difficulties of morally perplexing biblical passages and to harmonize them with certain traditions and accepted teachings of the synagogue or the church. By assigning to each feature of a text a hidden, symbolic, or mystical meaning beyond the primary meaning that the words convey in their literal sense, the allegorical interpretation seeks to make that text more comprehensible, acceptable, and relevant to the present. . . .

 

Though there are explicit allegories in the Bible, such as the allegory of old age in Eccles. 12:1–7 and the parable of the sower in Mark 4:1–9, the allegorical method as it was developed in the post-biblical times allowed an interpreter great latitude for subjective speculation without providing means for critical evaluation of the postulated meanings of the text.

 

Yes, and Christians interpret by whichever method suits them on the day so that they can make it appear relevant. They could even make god's killing of Aaron's sons relevant and justifiable because they didn't light his sacrificial fire correctly, or the stoning to death of a man who was gathering firewood on the Sabbath.

 

[FiddlingAround]

Hello again, End, and thanks for the welcome. It's good to see that you're still around the place, too.

 

Since it's a bit late and my brains are rather addled (I just had to restart this post after mistaking the back button for undo) I think I'll just post the verses I was referring to tonight and then discuss this idea of organizational function more when I'm a bit fresher.

 

To be forced to marry any man who rapes me before I'm properly betrothed?

 

I assume you are talking of Mary? I don't have an answer to whether she was raped.

 

Nope, not Mary; OT law. Deuteronomy 22:28-29: If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

 

To obey my husband? Regardless of his actions?

 

I think you are applying the ideal to a natural husband.

 

The verse is phrased as a command, not as an ideal. Colossians 3:18: Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.

 

To learn in submission, because my thoughts and ideas cannot possibly benefit a man?

Two things here. First, when we really want to learn, don't we submit in reality? Secondly, as an instructive by God, it could be a thing where God tells us for our benefit?

 

I'm not really following the "secondly" tonight; I'll probably do better tomorrow. For tonight - the phrasing of the verse makes it clear that submission in learning is a gender-specific command based on perceived weakness and inability. 1 Timothy 2:11-12: A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.

 

To be saved by having children, then stay home and tend to them whether or not I, as an individual, am at all interested in or suited to raising children?

 

Sorry, you are going to cite a verse. I barely remember some of it.

 

1 Timothy 2:14-15: And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing--if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

 

I'm sorry...but few things rub me the wrong way like people who first claim that when the Bible says something sexist it doesn't really mean it...and then turn around and tell me that the Bible commands a "different" role for me because I'm female. Either really repudiate the sexism or own up to it.

 

Again, two things here. First, as I had pointed out, there is the possiblility that as an entity in an organization, that we possess a separate, unique function....seems rather unarguable, inarguable, whatever. Secondly, it would also seem that the ultimate goal of two being one would offer equality....yet, in a situation of separation, the roles probably don't offer equality due to the separation.

 

As for the rest, I'll offer more in the am. Sleep well.

[bdp]

 

 

love is kyle's middle name.....he just doesn't know it yet

 

The people who know me know that.

[Guest end3]

I would love to refute it but – as usual – your argument is cryptic.

 

"Love never fails, grace, and love for your brother."

 

What the hell does this even mean?

 

Is this even a complete sentence?

 

How does it relate to the bible and your imaginary god’s plan?

 

And isn't it odd, That the ones who make proclamations about god’s will and character -- ALL claim they understand the scripture they are using to support their particular world-view?

 

And please provide a defintion for transient – the way you are using it contextually.

 

--S.

sconnor,

 

It seems that end has retreated to an allegorical method of scripture interpretation which is a method used in the dark ages and was taken to excess so much that during the protestant reformation and afterward it was abandoned.

 

It allows the believer to indulge their speculative imagination and interpret any passage any way they want. And that is what end appears to be doing. The "plain sense" (what he seems to be calling 'transient' truth) is often painful to deal with or embarrassing to take seriously. So, a more "spiritual" or "eternal" meaning is sought. The allegorical interpretation is usually plucked out of thin air by the interpreter of a passage.

 

Allegory as a literary device is used in the Bible But the fact that allegory is being used is evident from the surrounding text (context). If there are no indicators from within the text that allegory is being used, any application of symbolism to "christ" or "the church" or "purity" is just plain imagination with no grounding in reality.

 

Here's an excerpt from Encyclopedia Britannica, Micropedia, Volume I. (Chicago, Illinois: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1976), p. 252.

 

allegorical interpretation, biblical, a hermeneutical (interpretive) method used to uncover hidden or symbolic meanings of a biblical text. Rooted in the techniques developed by Greek thinkers who attempted to overcome the problems posed by literal interpretations of ancient Greek myths, the allegorical method was further developed by Jewish scholars, such as Philo of Alexandria in the 1st century AD, and Christian thinkers, such as Clement and Origen of Alexandria in the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD. Though other methods of biblical interpretation were often used, the allegorical method was dominant until late medieval times. The Protestant Reformation of the 16th century rejected, for the most part, the allegorical method and returned to the more literal interpretation of the Bible.

 

The allegorical method attempts to overcome the difficulties of morally perplexing biblical passages and to harmonize them with certain traditions and accepted teachings of the synagogue or the church. By assigning to each feature of a text a hidden, symbolic, or mystical meaning beyond the primary meaning that the words convey in their literal sense, the allegorical interpretation seeks to make that text more comprehensible, acceptable, and relevant to the present. . . .

 

Though there are explicit allegories in the Bible, such as the allegory of old age in Eccles. 12:1–7 and the parable of the sower in Mark 4:1–9, the allegorical method as it was developed in the post-biblical times allowed an interpreter great latitude for subjective speculation without providing means for critical evaluation of the postulated meanings of the text.

 

Yes, and Christians interpret by whichever method suits them on the day so that they can make it appear relevant. They could even make god's killing of Aaron's sons relevant and justifiable because they didn't light his sacrificial fire correctly, or the stoning to death of a man who was gathering firewood on the Sabbath.

 

 

The Golden Rule and 1 Cor 13:8 are allegorical? Yeah, I am really moving stuff around. I'll probably land in hell for such heresy.

 

Luk 10:27 He answered: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'"

 

Rom 13:9 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."

 

1Cr 13:8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.

[Sconnor]

 

Gheez Scott, it ain't that hard....Love never fails.....give me an example of how love or grace fail in the context of the good news, die to self, Jesus message.

 

Who’s love? God’s love? Grace?

 

What exactly does the good news say about love never failing, grace, and love for your brother? And I guess (more importantly) what is your idiosyncratic interpretation of it?

 

Because in the real world -- divorce, murder, abuse etc. are examples of love and grace failing.

 

Wars, genocide, murder, greed, stealing are examples of love for your brother failing.

 

Transient....temporary in nature....give or take a few 100 years.

 

OK – so what. My argument is god's supposed word is contradictive, inconsistent, and hypocritical – surely not the words of an all-knowing, all powerful, all loving supreme being.

 

The list I provided -- that you called transient -- is a small example of how people interpret god’s word to suit their own polluted beliefs.

 

Didn’t god know that his words about women were misogynistic and people would use his word to justify sexual discrimination, abuse, subjugation, murder, of women?

 

Doesn’t this contradict god’s supposed message of love?

 

Can you NOT see that the bible was painfully written by an ancient people who used god’s supposed voice as their own to lend it some semblance of credibility?

 

Isn’t this exactly what you’re doing – putting forth propositions about your world-view, while pretending it comes from a divine source to give an illusion of credibility?

 

I’m establishing that the bible is NOT god’s word and anything you extract from it did not come from a supreme being of perfect power, wisdom and goodness.

 

I’m going to be away this weekend – I’ll have to get back to you on Monday.

 

--S.

[Deva]

Gheez Scott, it ain't that hard....Love never fails.....give me an example of how love or grace fail in the context of the good news, die to self, Jesus message.

 

Transient....temporary in nature....give or take a few 100 years.

 

Hey End, if I may interject--- if that's all there is to it, I would still be Christian. "Die to Self" - good. Same thing as "no self" I get that from the Buddha, and it IS HARD.

 

Too bad there is a bunch of other stuff.

[lunaticheathen]

To learn in submission, because my thoughts and ideas cannot possibly benefit a man?

Two things here. First, when we really want to learn, don't we submit in reality? Secondly, as an instructive by God, it could be a thing where God tells us for our benefit?

 

I'm not really following the "secondly" tonight; I'll probably do better tomorrow. For tonight - the phrasing of the verse makes it clear that submission in learning is a gender-specific command based on perceived weakness and inability. 1 Timothy 2:11-12: A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.

 

To be saved by having children, then stay home and tend to them whether or not I, as an individual, am at all interested in or suited to raising children?

 

Sorry, you are going to cite a verse. I barely remember some of it.

 

1 Timothy 2:14-15: And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing--if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

 

I'm sorry...but few things rub me the wrong way like people who first claim that when the Bible says something sexist it doesn't really mean it...and then turn around and tell me that the Bible commands a "different" role for me because I'm female. Either really repudiate the sexism or own up to it.

 

Again, two things here. First, as I had pointed out, there is the possiblility that as an entity in an organization, that we possess a separate, unique function....seems rather unarguable, inarguable, whatever. Secondly, it would also seem that the ultimate goal of two being one would offer equality....yet, in a situation of separation, the roles probably don't offer equality due to the separation.

 

The "learning in submission" thing always bothered me. Yes, you "submit" to be instructed, but in the best classes I had in college, it wasn't a case of "shut up and swallow everything teacher says whole", like the bible wants for women. We discussed ideas. We debated. All respectfully, all with due "submission" to the instructor, if you want to call it that, but we were allowed to speak and object. The one class where that wasn't the case was a terrible class with a grossly incompetent teacher who gave all the females just passing grades, because he thought they should be in the kitchen. Oh yeah, and he expressed that he hoped we were all with him in hoping that those who ordained the openly gay Episcopalian bishop went straight to hell for going against "God's word." In short, COMPLETE DICKS "teach" with the idea that ANYONE should just sit down, shut up, and believe everything one person says.

 

I get mad when christards start spouting misogynist bullshit, but I am even more frustrated when one claims to follow the bible, and claims the misogynist bullshit isn't there. I'm with you there Fidd.

 

Also, end, glad you see "separate, but equal" doesn't fucking work (EVER), but I'd say, beyond physical biological function, "separate" is total horseshit. Which makes the bible horseshit.

[FiddlingAround]

 

The "learning in submission" thing always bothered me. Yes, you "submit" to be instructed, but in the best classes I had in college, it wasn't a case of "shut up and swallow everything teacher says whole", like the bible wants for women. We discussed ideas. We debated. All respectfully, all with due "submission" to the instructor, if you want to call it that, but we were allowed to speak and object. The one class where that wasn't the case was a terrible class with a grossly incompetent teacher who gave all the females just passing grades, because he thought they should be in the kitchen. Oh yeah, and he expressed that he hoped we were all with him in hoping that those who ordained the openly gay Episcopalian bishop went straight to hell for going against "God's word." In short, COMPLETE DICKS "teach" with the idea that ANYONE should just sit down, shut up, and believe everything one person says.

 

I get mad when christards start spouting misogynist bullshit, but I am even more frustrated when one claims to follow the bible, and claims the misogynist bullshit isn't there. I'm with you there Fidd.

 

Also, end, glad you see "separate, but equal" doesn't fucking work (EVER), but I'd say, beyond physical biological function, "separate" is total horseshit. Which makes the bible horseshit.

 

Wow. Where did you go to school?

[noob]

I think I can say this of all deconverts. Once we deconvert, we can't reconvert. Thats what I'm like, I tried. I can't cram God back into my brain. My brains like "Damn, That shit is wack!" and throws it right out of my brain. No "true" deconvert can reconvert because its not possible.

 

Sure I'm just a child, but the earlier it happens, the more you learn. Your not stuck looking at everything being two dimensional, once someone glimpses the Third dimension they won't be satisfied with 2d.

 

Amen.

[Guest Valk0010]

yeah, how do you think Justna felt.....oh, never mind, you didn't.

The only reason she felt bad because she really never deconverted. She thought she did, but what she did was rebellion. She didn't like her life so she did the opposite. A deconvert doesn't just decide to leave, its made up of many big steps.

 

I think I can say this of all deconverts. Once we deconvert, we can't reconvert. Thats what I'm like, I tried. I can't cram God back into my brain. My brains like "Damn, That shit is wack!" and throws it right out of my brain. No "true" deconvert can reconvert because its not possible.

 

Sure I'm just a child, but the earlier it happens, the more you learn. Your not stuck looking at everything being two dimensional, once someone glimpses the Third dimension they won't be satisfied with 2d.

 

I'll quit picking on you being a "yout" an all. I don't see it like that. We can hold to a theory, so why not hold to faith?

Faith is belief in a is, and a theory is a is.

[Ouroboros]

We can hold to a theory, so why not hold to faith?

How and why?

 

We hold on to a theory because it makes sense. If a theory doesn't make sense, we don't hold on to it.

 

We hold on to faith because we believe it's true. If we don't believe it's true, we can't hold on to that faith.

 

 

So again, explain how to overcome that problem. And also, why we have to overcome that problem.

[bdp]

 

Gheez Scott, it ain't that hard....Love never fails.....give me an example of how love or grace fail in the context of the good news, die to self, Jesus message.

 

Sometimes 'love' means having to drown the earth.

[Overcame Faith]

 

Gheez Scott, it ain't that hard....Love never fails.....give me an example of how love or grace fail in the context of the good news, die to self, Jesus message.

 

Sometimes 'love' means having to drown the earth.

 

Yeah, that's deep love.

[Dibllsmek]

 

Gheez Scott, it ain't that hard....Love never fails.....give me an example of how love or grace fail in the context of the good news, die to self, Jesus message.

 

Sometimes 'love' means having to drown the earth.

In that case, I just "love" Justyna and end3 SO MUCH!

[OnceConvinced]

yeah, how do you think Justna felt.....oh, never mind, you didn't.

The only reason she felt bad because she really never deconverted. She thought she did, but what she did was rebellion. She didn't like her life so she did the opposite. A deconvert doesn't just decide to leave, its made up of many big steps.

 

I think I can say this of all deconverts. Once we deconvert, we can't reconvert. Thats what I'm like, I tried. I can't cram God back into my brain. My brains like "Damn, That shit is wack!" and throws it right out of my brain. No "true" deconvert can reconvert because its not possible.

 

Sure I'm just a child, but the earlier it happens, the more you learn. Your not stuck looking at everything being two dimensional, once someone glimpses the Third dimension they won't be satisfied with 2d.

 

I'll quit picking on you being a "yout" an all. I don't see it like that. We can hold to a theory, so why not hold to faith?

Faith is belief in a is, and a theory is a is.

 

I love the quote I heard in a computer game the other day. One guy says you need to have faith. The other says "With that and a quarter you have 25 cents."

[Mr. Neil]

A theory is a conceptual model. It's applicable.

[Guest end3]

 

Gheez Scott, it ain't that hard....Love never fails.....give me an example of how love or grace fail in the context of the good news, die to self, Jesus message.

 

Sometimes 'love' means having to drown the earth.

 

We still kill people today via the death penalty. We also participate in wars...which is an act of trying to protect or love our "good" brothers.

[Guest end3]

We can hold to a theory, so why not hold to faith?

How and why?

 

We hold on to a theory because it makes sense. If a theory doesn't make sense, we don't hold on to it.

 

We hold on to faith because we believe it's true. If we don't believe it's true, we can't hold on to that faith.

 

 

So again, explain how to overcome that problem. And also, why we have to overcome that problem.

 

 

Look, I see your point, but a theory has all the info we give it or conclude.

 

The Bible says remain in faith because you don't have all the info. It gives you the theory and says you don't have the rest of the info to "conclude" and dismiss the theory.

[Guest end3]

Gheez Scott, it ain't that hard....Love never fails.....give me an example of how love or grace fail in the context of the good news, die to self, Jesus message.

 

Transient....temporary in nature....give or take a few 100 years.

 

Hey End, if I may interject--- if that's all there is to it, I would still be Christian. "Die to Self" - good. Same thing as "no self" I get that from the Buddha, and it IS HARD.

 

Too bad there is a bunch of other stuff.

 

I'm glad you see the point Ms. D. I am just of the understanding that we can only achieve that state in brief moments. Thanks for the post.