Weary of the Brutishness of the Modern Mind

I told you, I am a redhead! Laughing

We are known for our stubborness!

As far as tenacity, well, I had to keep telling myself that they were just waiting for me to blow my top and let them have it and then they could point one more finger. And then, I'd stop and I'd think about something someone told me once. "Momma, how do you think they look through God's eyes?" Well, that makes it a lot easier.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

It may not matter much what you tell Frank. If you read some of my discussions with him you will see that he can be quite set in his ways. I refer to our discussions of Moses and Pharaoh, and of Adam and Eve.

Of Mesquite I have no knowledge.

Even within the Old Testament, God is presented as a multi faceted Being. He is a God of grace, and a God of absolute holiness. He is eternal and yet he responds to our prayers.

real life, if you are so confident about that, perhaps you will take Frank's challenge. Both Momma Angel and neologist have declined. It is easy to offer broad sweeping generalizations without references, but much more difficult when you are asked to back them up.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Let's go to the parts of the Bible where the god is actually on the scene...either talking or appearing....

...and you cite a passage where the god is on the scene and is showing compassion for the human predicament....where the god is not killing anyone, asking anyone else to kill anyone...or not threatening anyone.

I will then cite a passage where the god is on the scene and is killing someone, asking someone else to kill someone....or threatening someone.

Let's see who runs out of citations first.

0 Replies

mesquite wrote:

Let's see who runs out of citations first.

Exercise in futility: we can all simply trot over to the online Nave's and find both sets of citations aplenty. Who's gonna volunteer to be the "scorekeeper," counting them up? (Zzzzzzzzz....)

C'MONNNNNNN, guys! Who ever heard of depicting God via the "Paint-By-Numbers" method? Rolling Eyes

BUT!

If you want one summation citation, the ULTIMATE picture, 3-D, manifest in space and time, then look no further than Jesus Christ Himself.

"For in him the whole fulness of deity dwells bodily" (COLOSSIANS 2:9)

"For in him all the fulness of God was pleased to dwell" (COLOSSIANS 1:19)

"He is before all things, and in him all things hold together." (COLOSSIANS 1:17)

...His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life" (1 JOHN 5:20),

"God was manifest in the flesh" (1 TIMOTHY 3:16)

HEBREWS 1:2ff "...Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He is the effulgence of God and bears the very stamp of his nature, upholding the universe by his word of power."

So, now, 'fess up: whadder yer gripes about Jesus?

0 Replies

Di,

I do love the way you joust!

0 Replies

Momma, is that the best you can do, to congratulate someone for posting a response that you know to not be remotely related to the question? Diag may have an excuse since the context and history of the question were in a different topic, even though you did bring it up here. You appear to be impressed easily. A jouster that shows up on the wrong field with no pole does little for me.

Diag, I have no problems with the activities of Jesus. My question is the statements that there is no difference in the depiction of God in the Old Testament and Jesus in the New Testament.

If you are interested and I suspect you are not, see this post and the one that follows it. Neo and Momma would not, or could not provide one citation, which is very telling to my view.

0 Replies

Mesquite,

Well, I didn't find a reason to comment on Diag's post other than what I said because I agreed with the post. I agreed that the scriptures given did relate to the post about the challenge. You don't agree and I imagine Frank doesn't or wouldn't either. But, that doesn't mean they didn't answer the question. Perhaps you just don't like the answers.

As far as "the challenge goes," I have stated my position on that and am not going to change it.

I presented my argument, Frank presented his. I don't agree with his, he doesn't agree with mine. So, stalemate if you will. Forfeit, if you will. I really thought that subject was closed.

0 Replies

mesquite wrote:

Momma, is that the best you can do, to congratulate someone for posting a response that you know to not be remotely related to the question? Diag may have an excuse since the context and history of the question were in a different topic, even though you did bring it up here. You appear to be impressed easily. A jouster that shows up on the wrong field with no pole does little for me.

Diag, I have no problems with the activities of Jesus. My question is the statements that there is no difference in the depiction of God in the Old Testament and Jesus in the New Testament.

If you are interested and I suspect you are not, see this post and the one that follows it. Neo and Momma would not, or could not provide one citation, which is very telling to my view.

Why get into a name calling match with Frank? If there were even one legitimate passage showing God to be brutal, Frank would win.

The law was impossible for an imperfect human to follow. That is why Paul referred to it as a "Tutor leading to Christ." (Galatians 3:24)

The seemingly harsh judgements under the law were recorded to instruct us in God's understanding of sin. We have to understand this because all of us are sinners under the sentence of death. (Romans 5:12)

The good news (gospel) is that Jesus' death opened a door for all who never knew God to experience a resurrection where they could have the opportunity to live the life Adam lost. (John 5:28,29)

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

I presented my argument, Frank presented his. I don't agree with his, he doesn't agree with mine. So, stalemate if you will. Forfeit, if you will. I really thought that subject was closed.

Closed? Then why just two pages back in this topic did you bring it up again and ask for help?

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1468558#1468558

To which real life responded and I then responded to real life here...

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1477021#1477021

Then follows diags non responsive post and your praise for it.

Edited to repair link.

0 Replies

Well, let me put it to you this way. To me, I am finished with that. I got the help I needed in answering the question. Frank still disagrees, but, that's the way it is.

0 Replies

Yep. I figured that belief validation was what you were seeking rather than objective information.

0 Replies

Mesquite,

I stated my main reason for not engaging in the challenge and I have not, nor will not change my mind.

I do not need you, Frank, or anyone else to validate my beliefs. One of my favorite scripture verses is "He that is in me is greater than he who is in this world." I do not worry about being validated. I was just asking questions and trying to answer some questions and wanting to learn. I just didn't want to be insulted or disrespected. And, IMO, there's not a danged thing wrong with that. I think if more people stood up for what is right (and please don't give me that, oh who are you to decide what is right line, please!) then there wouldn't be as many problems in this world that there are. We keep lowering our standards instead of having others raise up to them. There are basic rights and wrongs, period. You are either part of the problem or part of the solution. I want to be part of the solution.

0 Replies

mesquite wrote:

Yep. I figured that belief validation was what you were seeking rather than objective information.

Do you really believe yourself to be objective? I think nearly everybody here could and should be able to say that they have very strong opinions and views on the matters herein discussed.

0 Replies

Thanx Real Life.

Hey, you should join our discussion on being Part of the Problem or Part of the Solution. We are just getting started but it's been very interesting. Getting some good feedback.

Here's the link:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=56232&highlight=

Kisses,

Momma Angel

P.S. One of the postees spoke of a "resident King Kong". He's already there. Laughing

0 Replies

real life wrote:

mesquite wrote:
Yep. I figured that belief validation was what you were seeking rather than objective information.

Do you really believe yourself to be objective?

Yes, I most certainly do. I try to keep my discussion about religion centered on what is written in the religious texts, what is known about their origins, comparisons to historical and geological knowns etc. I try to use accurate references wherever possible. This is not to say that I never offer just an opinion, but I do try to keep my participation grounded in reality. The statement quoted above was obviously an opinion and I think it was dead on.

real life wrote:

I think nearly everybody here could and should be able to say that they have very strong opinions and views on the matters herein discussed.

Why are you telling me this? Have I ever said that anyone should not be able to express an opinion, or are you expecting opinions without basis to be allowed to go unchallenged?

0 Replies

mesquite wrote:

real life wrote:
mesquite wrote:
Yep. I figured that belief validation was what you were seeking rather than objective information.

Do you really believe yourself to be objective?

Yes, I most certainly do. I try to keep my discussion about religion centered on what is written in the religious texts, what is known about their origins, comparisons to historical and geological knowns etc. I try to use accurate references wherever possible. This is not to say that I never offer just an opinion, but I do try to keep my participation grounded in reality. The statement quoted above was obviously an opinion and I think it was dead on.

real life wrote:
I think nearly everybody here could and should be able to say that they have very strong opinions and views on the matters herein discussed.

Why are you telling me this? Have I ever said that anyone should not be able to express an opinion, or are you expecting opinions without basis to be allowed to go unchallenged?

If you have taken a position on a topic, how do you expect to be taken seriously as objective?

0 Replies

If that wasn't clear enough for you, I don't know what more I can add.

0 Replies

mesquite wrote:

If that wasn't clear enough for you, I don't know what more I can add.

Don't you think it's better if we simply admit that we are not objective if we have taken a position on an issue?

That certainly doesn't disqualify us from addressing the issue, weighing the evidence presented by all and even changing our position if we are persuaded otherwise.

But I think the most forthright statement would be to say upfront that we have a position that we hold to (if we have taken one) and that our argument ought to be approached with that being clearly understood.

0 Replies

When discussing the character of the God of the Bible, I think it is important to examine how this God is portrayed in first person accounts in the Bible.

A refusal to do that is the lack of objectivity by Momma Angel that I was referring to. I can certainly understand the reason for the refusal and she has every right to do so, as I have every right to comment on it.

0 Replies

Mesquite,

Can you please explain that last post to me? I am a bit behind here.

0 Replies

Momma,
That was directed at real life. We have been having a back and forth since the top of the page.

0 Replies

Weary of the Brutishness of the Modern Mind

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know