stlstrike3 wrote:. . . Don't you think if a supreme ruler of the universe wanted us to have a guidebook to life, he/she would have made it a little more timeless? Perhaps a bit less vague? Perhaps with all his/her omniscience, inspire writers to be a little more consistent? . . .
What you are saying is you wish to have God speak to you on your terms. What you fail to understand is that the bible was written so the least sophisticated among us would be able to understand God's requirements.
Intelligent folks like you, if you wish to understand the bible, must take the energy you devote to nitpicking and turn it to finding explanations for your perceived inconsistencies. Yokels like me may be able to point you in the right direction, but the effort must be yours.
neologist wrote:stlstrike3 wrote:. . . Don't you think if a supreme ruler of the universe wanted us to have a guidebook to life, he/she would have made it a little more timeless? Perhaps a bit less vague? Perhaps with all his/her omniscience, inspire writers to be a little more consistent? . . .
What you are saying is you wish to have God speak to you on your terms. What you fail to understand is that the bible was written so the least sophisticated among us would be able to understand God's requirements.
The least sophisticated amongst us can't even read. That requires the simplest of the simpletons to rely on biblical interpretation of another individual. And hopefully they're not soliciting this advice from someone who seeks to control them. But wait... that's exactly how the church operated until the 16th century.... go figure.
stlstrike3 wrote:neologist wrote:stlstrike3 wrote:. . . Don't you think if a supreme ruler of the universe wanted us to have a guidebook to life, he/she would have made it a little more timeless? Perhaps a bit less vague? Perhaps with all his/her omniscience, inspire writers to be a little more consistent? . . .
What you are saying is you wish to have God speak to you on your terms. What you fail to understand is that the bible was written so the least sophisticated among us would be able to understand God's requirements.
The least sophisticated amongst us can't even read. That requires the simplest of the simpletons to rely on biblical interpretation of another individual. And hopefully they're not soliciting this advice from someone who seeks to control them. But wait... that's exactly how the church operated until the 16th century.... go figure.
Most of the least sophisticated among us can learn to read. That was exactly what the church feared most.
So did you just say that "the church" is a repressive and corrupt entity?
USAFHokie80 wrote:So did you just say that "the church" is a repressive and corrupt entity?
I am in agreement with the creator of Sherlock Holmes on this point:
"I can clearly see that, in honesty, men must either give up war, or else they must confess that the words of the redeemer are too lofty for them, and that there is no longer any use in pretending that His teaching can be reduced to practice. I have seen a Christian minister blessing a cannon which had just been founded, and another blessing a warship as it glided from the slips. They, the so-called representatives of Christ, blessed these engines of destruction which cruel man has devised to destroy and tear his fellow-worms. What would we say if we read in holy writ of our Lord having blessed the battering-rams and catapults of the legions? Would we think that it was in agreement with his teaching? " -Sir Arthur Conan Doyle -
Micah Clarke
neologist wrote:USAFHokie80 wrote:So did you just say that "the church" is a repressive and corrupt entity?
I am in agreement with the creator of Sherlock Holmes on this point:
"I can clearly see that, in honesty, men must either give up war, or else they must confess that the words of the redeemer are too lofty for them, and that there is no longer any use in pretending that His teaching can be reduced to practice. I have seen a Christian minister blessing a cannon which had just been founded, and another blessing a warship as it glided from the slips. They, the so-called representatives of Christ, blessed these engines of destruction which cruel man has devised to destroy and tear his fellow-worms. What would we say if we read in holy writ of our Lord having blessed the battering-rams and catapults of the legions? Would we think that it was in agreement with his teaching? " -Sir Arthur Conan Doyle -
Micah Clarke
I'm not terribly sure I see how that applies here...
If you are not sure how it applies, i can only say that you do not understand what beliefs Neo's exegesis have lead him to. He is opposed to any religion which requires the intervention of priests, by which he would mean any priest, minister or preacher of any description or of any qualifications. His point is that in his view, true Christianity resides in the individual, and does not appertain to any establishment of religion; that true Christianity does not adhere to the credo of any organized religious body. Neo believes that Christianity can be revealed by a careful reading of scripture, in which he believes that god's will is made manifest.
I don't entirely consider Neo free of self-delusion in that regard, because i believe that he adheres to a view of Christianity which is predicated upon a particularist revelation with which he chooses to agree. Nevertheless, while personally having no good reason to believe a deity exists, and while personally not being convinced that scripture is a reliable record of the past--i nevertheless see whatever excellence may be alleged to be derived from the teachings of the putative Jesus as being the message that any heaven which exists exists within the individual, and that the individual must seek "the kingdom of god" within one's self, and not through any outward ritual or the "wisdom" of any ecclesiastic hierarchy. This explains in large measure why i have more respect for Neo than any other religionist whom i have met in these fora, and why we get along reasonably well and understand one another reasonably well.
Ahhh... Well I would tend to agree with him in that respect. I personally do not believe in a literal interpretation of the bible and I also do not think it a reliable source of history. In either case, I do not agree with the idea of a "church" or otherwise organized religious entity. If people are to believe, they should read the bible for themselves - not be told what it means. It seems to me part of free will is making up one's own mind as to the applicability of the bible.
Close, Set.
You get to pick your place at coffee.
Seems to me that Neo has a problem with resolving his disrespect for priests and maintaining utmost confidence in the Bible, since the Bible is essentially a product of said priests or clergy.
mesquite wrote:Seems to me that Neo has a problem with resolving his disrespect for priests and maintaining utmost confidence in the Bible, since the Bible is essentially a product of said priests or clergy.
Good observation. One must keep in mind the words of Jesus at Matthew 7 15, 16: "Be on the watch for the false prophets that come to YOU in sheep's covering, but inside they are ravenous wolves. 16 By their fruits YOU will recognize them . . ."
And what's a false prophet?
Anyone who doesn't agree with me!!
The bible could say, "Sodomize your sons with a treebranch on his 10th birthday" and Christians would find some way to transform it into a message of >>insert lame excuse here<<.
Good catch neo. stlstrike3 should stick to real examples such as the lame excuse of setting an example as reason to have an unruly son stoned to death. There is no need to make stuff up when there are so many actual examples to choose from.
Moses in Deuteronomy 21 wrote:18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
mesquite wrote:Good catch neo. stlstrike3 should stick to real examples such as the lame excuse of setting an example as reason to have an unruly son stoned to death. There is no need to make stuff up when there are so many actual examples to choose from.
Moses in Deuteronomy 21 wrote:18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
Let that be a lesson to ya. Ya smart mouth kid . . .
mesquite wrote:neologist wrote:mesquite wrote:Seems to me that Neo has a problem with resolving his disrespect for priests and maintaining utmost confidence in the Bible, since the Bible is essentially a product of said priests or clergy.
Good observation. One must keep in mind the words of Jesus at Matthew 7 15, 16: "Be on the watch for the false prophets that come to YOU in sheep's covering, but inside they are ravenous wolves. 16 By their fruits YOU will recognize them . . ."
You mean like Paul?
You would have to prove that, skeet
neologist wrote:mesquite wrote:neologist wrote:mesquite wrote:Seems to me that Neo has a problem with resolving his disrespect for priests and maintaining utmost confidence in the Bible, since the Bible is essentially a product of said priests or clergy.
Good observation. One must keep in mind the words of Jesus at Matthew 7 15, 16: "Be on the watch for the false prophets that come to YOU in sheep's covering, but inside they are ravenous wolves. 16 By their fruits YOU will recognize them . . ."
You mean like Paul?
You would have to prove that, skeet
Something for you to read Neo.
http://www.wordwiz72.com/paul.html
http://www.voiceofjesus.org/paulvsjesus.html
http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/
http://www.anatheist.com/Articles/paul_vs_jesus.html
