0
   

Existentialism and Terrorism

 
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Jul, 2006 10:24 am
Cyracuz wrote:
Interesting thoughts RedRex. But there is one thing in it I must object to, and it is your phrasing. You write "word of wisdom". I honelstly believe that words are of such a nature that it is impossible to convey truth with them.


Words can convey truth if they are received with meekness.

A human heart must be tender to accept truth.

"The greatest cargos of life come across calm seas."

James 1:21
Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls.
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Jul, 2006 11:34 am
hmm..

One can argue that the "engrafted word" means "truth as established by experience".
Words can never convey wisdom to one who doesn't possess it.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Jul, 2006 04:57 pm
Cyracuz wrote:
hmm..

One can argue that the "engrafted word" means "truth as established by experience".
Words can never convey wisdom to one who doesn't possess it.


Wisdom is applied knowledge.

Emphutos translated "engrafted" is used only once in the Bible. So secular literature will be a source for enlightenment.

It is defined in Strongs concordance as:
1. inborn, implanted by nature, implanted by others instruction

Comment:

I consider engrafted to be God's implanted wisdom in the new birth as opposed to our wisdom prior to our being born of holy spirit.

After this new birth the wisdom/will (good news) of God is often contrary to our wisdom obtained prior by our five senses.

Truth is obtained spiritually and cannot be obtained without the presence of the holy spirit.

Man's wisdom is God's foolishness. So God's wisdom must be a foreign thing to our ability to deduct logically.

So we cast away our own wisdom and we with meekness allow the spiritually implanted word to grow and rule over our wisdom obtained through the five senses or "flesh"...
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Jul, 2006 08:56 am
I cannot say that I agree. Nor do I disagree. There are too many losely defined words for me to be sure of what you're saying.

To me the "holy spirit" is equivalent to the "spark of life".

Also, engrafted wisdom could be understood in a more down to earth manner. It may just be the birth of an idea that proves something true. The nuclear bomb is the knowledge of E=MC2 engrafted.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Jul, 2006 09:49 am
Cyracuz wrote:
I cannot say that I agree. Nor do I disagree. There are too many losely defined words for me to be sure of what you're saying.

To me the "holy spirit" is equivalent to the "spark of life".

Also, engrafted wisdom could be understood in a more down to earth manner. It may just be the birth of an idea that proves something true. The nuclear bomb is the knowledge of E=MC2 engrafted.


Every living organism has a spark of life (soul) but "spirit" is on a higher plane then soul life.

body, soul and spirit

Animals have soul (breath) life too. But "spirit" (as opposed to "soul") is obtained AFTER physical birth. We are physically born with the nature of the world and the nature of the unholy spirit. But when we make a spiritual choice we are then "born" of either (holy/unholy) spirit. These spirits then need to be operated and manifested in order to obtain truth from them. The true Gods spirit teaches our spirit which teaches our mind. God's spirit represents a NEW nature. A nature is a thing that either gets better and better or worse and worse depending on which nature you have obtained.
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Jul, 2006 10:15 am
what you call spirit I am inclined to call the invented self, while what you call soul is the only essence. To me soul and spirit is pretty much the same.
0 Replies
 
miG
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Jul, 2006 10:32 am
sorry, I did not read the entire discussion so this might seem like a hijack.

In no way do I think the terrorist can justrify as killing others as "good". In my opinion, while you have freedom of action to do whatever you please, that freedom ends where another's begins. As such, the terrorist is infriging upon another's freedom and can be thus considered "morally" wrong for breaking that boundary.
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Jul, 2006 12:13 pm
he's not trying to justify. he's just disturbed.

you could lay the blame at leaders who expliot the religion to mess with people's heads. prodding and tugging subtly enough that the person thinks he's making the decision himself.

it might be as cynical as putting suicidal persons to some use, although I don't personally believe that.
0 Replies
 
miG
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Jul, 2006 09:21 pm
yeah i don't think organized religion is a good idea for society Smile
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/29/2024 at 08:37:56