100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: These word speak for themselves | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
The OP is just an example of trying to imterpret scripture, before ones spiritual eyes have been opened yet  .... Also, when SCRIPTURE IS TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT , one also misses the meaning..... ENTIRELY. (also notice , to whom the scriptures were referring to).  Seems to me the only "imterpret"-ation being made is by you, trying to make those "appear" nicer than they are. All the OP did was take lines from the Bible. I don't see him, anywhere in his post, saying what those lines mean. And statements like this, is why I won't be wasting further time here. There ARE people out there who DO want to learn.... and are NOT just coming on a forum, wasting other people's time. Take care now. For once would you stay and offer something more substantial than moral platitudes. It seems ever time the heat is turned on you have no response except that you've nothing more to say. If you have some of substance to offer then please stay do offer it. These actions cause people to think that you really don't have anything of substance to offer. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
ThomasJB
on
Tue 03/17/09 04:13 PM
|
|
These words we take literally seem to mean utter brutality! Perhaps they're more like code for greater understanding of relationship between self and higher self. No illusion/delusion dissolved (of only self as most important) until one actually identifies, acknowledges and accepts that they've been operating purely for self all along. Further faulting self for operating this way seems to only lead straight back to looking only at self. More of the same. Challenging one's own perception at the cost of utter abandonment of anything once believed. Will the Higher Self carry me through? How is anything not about yourself. Even if you only do something to help someone else, most would say it makes them feel good to do so. That is a selfish motive in and of itself. You only do good as long as it makes you feel better about yourself. We need to move away from this idea that there is such a thing as an unselfish motive. Even if one was to do good with no expectation of reciprocity immediate or at some point in the future, it either makes you feel good or you are just dutifully depositing with expectations of divine dividends. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is said that a picture is worth a thousand words. How many pictures are these words worth? "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it." (Matthew 10:34-39 NASB) "If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple." (Luke 14:26) "But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one." (Luke 22:36 NASB) Um, there was an urgency with which Christ said many of these words. What was about to happen to the church was devasting. A wave of persecution was about to break out and only those who were deeply commited would not lose there faith. Following would mean losing everything. It meant being rejected by your family because you now follow the Christ. Losing aunts and uncles and brothers and sisters. This was a much different time. The context of the matthew is different than you and I might expect. Its in comparison to how much we love Christ. Christ calls us to a pure devotion |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is said that a picture is worth a thousand words. How many pictures are these words worth? "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it." (Matthew 10:34-39 NASB) "If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple." (Luke 14:26) "But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one." (Luke 22:36 NASB) Um, there was an urgency with which Christ said many of these words. What was about to happen to the church was devasting. A wave of persecution was about to break out and only those who were deeply commited would not lose there faith. Following would mean losing everything. It meant being rejected by your family because you now follow the Christ. Losing aunts and uncles and brothers and sisters. This was a much different time. The context of the matthew is different than you and I might expect. Its in comparison to how much we love Christ. Christ calls us to a pure devotion Sounds very much like the way a cult would operate. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And the best book I've read on Buddhism is
What the Buddha Taught by Walpola Rahula And I just have to share this...since where all learning here...from page 86 of the aboveforementioned book... As the Buddha says: "The victor breeds hatred, and the defeated lies down in misery. He who renounces both victory and defeat is happy and peaceful." thank u for letting me share 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you for sharing
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Isn't it pretty telling that these sort of verses are never quoted by people who proselytize with vigor? I have to wonder if they don't cherry pick and then when the fruit is found to have some pretty hard pits, they rationalize those away, too. "A rose wouldn't be as beautiful without the thorns" and other somesuch rambling pseudo profundity.
After many such contradictions, some folks just come to the realization on their own that these texts have human fallibility written all over them. -Kerry O. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The OP in this case has brought up some really good scriptural points. One of the things I find incredible about some of the responses is that there is an underlying accusation of "quote mining" or, roughly explained, cherry picking verses to try to make a point. While I don't believe that is what the OP has done, it is worth pointing out that the mere arguments are part of the bigger picture (and in this case, issue) with scripture.
One of the things that has always baffled me as it relates to scripture is why a God who wanted the basic choice (that being a choice between eternal enjoinment (sic) and eternal separation) to be so confusing? Let's use changing a tire as an example. Let's say that I was charged with writing a manual for everyone to understand, that covered changing a tire. Remember, I've been charged with constructing a manual that is easily understood. This is to ensure that everyone who picks it up is picking up a solid and accurate guide. But what if instead of writing a simple and straightforward account of how to best change a tire, I made filled the manual with alagory and vague charges. What if I used symbolism, or metaphors? What if when done the manual was potentially confusing enough to require people to have to go to school and/or tire seminary in order to properly follow my directions? How stupid would such a document be? But that is exactly why I take issue with so many of the scriptures. God, knowing that not everyone who read the "word" was going to have a high I.Q. or a special gift for metaphor deciphering, still choose to allow via proxy a complicated book. The bible is NOT straightforward at all. It talks in riddles and allegory, symbolism and metaphor enough that entire colleges and even doctoral degrees are offered in it's understanding. Why? Shouldn't the easiest and most unencumbered book ever written actually BE the bible? Shouldn't God have wanted it that way? Shouldn't he have insisted that above all else the book be written so that there is no ambiguity, no guessing, and no misinterpretation? Entire books are dedicated to certain passages and entire encyclopedias are dedicated to the book of John. Why? Shouldn't truth be as simple and as clear as possible? And shouldn't the all-knowing, creator of everything be able to commission a book that no one could possibly debate? It is one thing for people to debate the authenticity of a holy book but when the debate rages not on the authenticity of the book but on the meaning held within, the smacks of purposeful obfuscation, not clarity of vision or heart. If I wrote the tire changing book, I would write it as clearly and as concisely as possible. I would leave out words and processes that made people have to dig for the truth. The Bible's biggest flaw is that it is so completely debatable, so void of consensus. It is that lack of clarity and the endless debates that make me more and more curious as to who in fact the author really was. Thanks for reading. DB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
((((drew)))) ltns....interesting post btw
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jesus was controversial. A bruised reed he would not break, but on one occasion he asked the pharisees how they expected to escape the damnation of hell. No one ever spoke such hot scorching words against sin. As Josephus says, he was a doer of wonderful deeds. He did not claim to speak on his own behalf, but he claimed to be equal with the father of whom he spoke. He spoke with authority,"not what they say, but what I say unto you".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
splendidlife
on
Tue 03/17/09 07:21 PM
|
|
These words we take literally seem to mean utter brutality! Perhaps they're more like code for greater understanding of relationship between self and higher self. No illusion/delusion dissolved (of only self as most important) until one actually identifies, acknowledges and accepts that they've been operating purely for self all along. Further faulting self for operating this way seems to only lead straight back to looking only at self. More of the same. Challenging one's own perception at the cost of utter abandonment of anything once believed. Will the Higher Self carry me through? How is anything not about yourself. Even if you only do something to help someone else, most would say it makes them feel good to do so. That is a selfish motive in and of itself. You only do good as long as it makes you feel better about yourself. We need to move away from this idea that there is such a thing as an unselfish motive. Even if one was to do good with no expectation of reciprocity immediate or at some point in the future, it either makes you feel good or you are just dutifully depositing with expectations of divine dividends. When I'm driven only by self preservation, I'm blind to what every other human has to teach me. That leaves me miserable and utterly isolated. Can't help but be aware of the self that I am at any given moment, but tired of doing so at the expense of seeing another. Dog-tired of the isolation. No formula to suggest that I "must not" focus on self. Just ideas that what I was living in kept me as an island. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Isn't it pretty telling that these sort of verses are never quoted by people who proselytize with vigor? I have to wonder if they don't cherry pick and then when the fruit is found to have some pretty hard pits, they rationalize those away, too. "A rose wouldn't be as beautiful without the thorns" and other somesuch rambling pseudo profundity. After many such contradictions, some folks just come to the realization on their own that these texts have human fallibility written all over them. -Kerry O. Christ was controversial, I will not run from that. It is important that you understand the context with which Christ spoke. The renowned greek and New Testament scholar John A.T. Robertson at cambridge University says this. Hateth not (ou misei). An old and very strong verb misew, to hate, detest. The orientals use strong language where cooler spirits would speak of preference or indifference. But even so Jesus does not here mean that one must hate his father or mother of necessity or as such, for Matthew 15:4 proves the opposite. It is only where the element of choice comes in (cf. Matthew 6:24 ) as it sometimes does, when father or mother opposes Christ. Then one must not hesitate. The language here is more sharply put than in Matthew 10:37 . The ou here coalesces with the verb misei in this conditional clause of the first class determined as fulfilled. It is the language of exaggerated contrast, it is true, but it must not be watered down till the point is gone. In mentioning "and wife" Jesus has really made a comment on the excuse given in verse Matthew 20 (I married a wife and so I am not able to come). And his own life also (eti te kai thn psuchn eautou). Note te kai, both--and. "The te (B L) binds all the particulars into one bundle of renuncianda" (Bruce). Note this same triple group of conjunctions (eti te kai) in Acts 21:28 , "And moreover also," "even going as far as his own life." Martyrdom should be an ever-present possibility to the Christian, not to be courted, but not to be shunned. Love for Christ takes precedence "over even the elemental instinct of self-preservation" (Ragg). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
splendidlife
on
Tue 03/17/09 07:20 PM
|
|
The OP in this case has brought up some really good scriptural points. One of the things I find incredible about some of the responses is that there is an underlying accusation of "quote mining" or, roughly explained, cherry picking verses to try to make a point. While I don't believe that is what the OP has done, it is worth pointing out that the mere arguments are part of the bigger picture (and in this case, issue) with scripture. One of the things that has always baffled me as it relates to scripture is why a God who wanted the basic choice (that being a choice between eternal enjoinment (sic) and eternal separation) to be so confusing? Let's use changing a tire as an example. Let's say that I was charged with writing a manual for everyone to understand, that covered changing a tire. Remember, I've been charged with constructing a manual that is easily understood. This is to ensure that everyone who picks it up is picking up a solid and accurate guide. But what if instead of writing a simple and straightforward account of how to best change a tire, I made filled the manual with alagory and vague charges. What if I used symbolism, or metaphors? What if when done the manual was potentially confusing enough to require people to have to go to school and/or tire seminary in order to properly follow my directions? How stupid would such a document be? But that is exactly why I take issue with so many of the scriptures. God, knowing that not everyone who read the "word" was going to have a high I.Q. or a special gift for metaphor deciphering, still choose to allow via proxy a complicated book. The bible is NOT straightforward at all. It talks in riddles and allegory, symbolism and metaphor enough that entire colleges and even doctoral degrees are offered in it's understanding. Why? Shouldn't the easiest and most unencumbered book ever written actually BE the bible? Shouldn't God have wanted it that way? Shouldn't he have insisted that above all else the book be written so that there is no ambiguity, no guessing, and no misinterpretation? Entire books are dedicated to certain passages and entire encyclopedias are dedicated to the book of John. Why? Shouldn't truth be as simple and as clear as possible? And shouldn't the all-knowing, creator of everything be able to commission a book that no one could possibly debate? It is one thing for people to debate the authenticity of a holy book but when the debate rages not on the authenticity of the book but on the meaning held within, the smacks of purposeful obfuscation, not clarity of vision or heart. If I wrote the tire changing book, I would write it as clearly and as concisely as possible. I would leave out words and processes that made people have to dig for the truth. The Bible's biggest flaw is that it is so completely debatable, so void of consensus. It is that lack of clarity and the endless debates that make me more and more curious as to who in fact the author really was. Thanks for reading. DB Perhaps "misinterpretation" is an integral part of the human experience. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
ThomasJB
on
Tue 03/17/09 07:36 PM
|
|
These words we take literally seem to mean utter brutality! Perhaps they're more like code for greater understanding of relationship between self and higher self. No illusion/delusion dissolved (of only self as most important) until one actually identifies, acknowledges and accepts that they've been operating purely for self all along. Further faulting self for operating this way seems to only lead straight back to looking only at self. More of the same. Challenging one's own perception at the cost of utter abandonment of anything once believed. Will the Higher Self carry me through? How is anything not about yourself. Even if you only do something to help someone else, most would say it makes them feel good to do so. That is a selfish motive in and of itself. You only do good as long as it makes you feel better about yourself. We need to move away from this idea that there is such a thing as an unselfish motive. Even if one was to do good with no expectation of reciprocity immediate or at some point in the future, it either makes you feel good or you are just dutifully depositing with expectations of divine dividends. When I'm driven only by self preservation, I'm blind to what every other human has to teach me. That leaves me miserable and utterly isolated. Can't help but be aware of the self that I am at any given moment, but tired of doing so at the expense of seeing another. Dog-tired of the isolation. No formula to suggest that I "must not" focus on self. Just ideas that what I was living in kept me as an island. I'm not suggesting that we our lives as islands. I'm only suggesting that all actions at their lowest level are based in self preservation and satisfaction and that we should not feel any guilt in that. I further suggest that we stop putting those who purport to act selflessly on pedestals when in fact their motives boiled down to their purest from are no different than ours. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Filmfreek
on
Tue 03/17/09 07:37 PM
|
|
The bible and Jesus were put on this Earth to make life interesting, and to cause interesting debates.
What else would we have to argue about? Which movie is better? Star Wars or Lord of the Rings? Been there, done that,...boring  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In Buddhism there is a saying: If you meet someone claiming to be the Buddha kill him for the Buddha is in all of us (and everything). This has got to be the most eloquent way of preventing Deifying someone which included Buddha. Buddhism is about the Philosophy and not about a man. There is a history to Buddha and he was a real person who was written of by more than one of his contemporaries. Not once did he ever say that enlightenment came through him. He taught that each of us must find our own enlightenment and that he was only providing a direction to seek it. Many who understand these principles have found that we needed no religion in our lives. Buddhism also recognizes good and evil as integral parts of us and we are in the middle trying to either keep or tip the balance and that Karma plays into this maintenance of balance. Buddhism is often confused with Hinduism and the two are wholly different. Funny how the big three religions tend to leave the Buddhists alone! Actually Buddhism itself is an poorly-defined label. I'm currently taking an in-depth course on Buddhism and I've also been reseaching it on the web now for some time. There are actually many different traditions and beliefs within Buddhism just as there are many different denominations and beliefs of Christianity. The main differences in Buddhism have to do with ideas of nirvana and what it means to achieve it. None the less, they all seem to understand the path fairly well. And Jesus most certainly taught the things necessary for that path. So it would be one hell of a coincidence that some jealous ancient God of Abraham just happened to expect the very same things that Buddha realized are necessary to be born again. Especially concidering that the God of Abraham taught JUST THE OPPOSITE things in the Old Testament, and then Jesus had to come along to teach the correct path. What sense does that make?  In any case, because of the various conclusions of various different Buddhist doctrines and traditions I really don't mean to support any particular version of Buddhism. I was just making the observation that Jesus did indeed teach the same things that Buddha taught and definitely NOT the same things that had been taught by the mythology of the God of Abraham. There's no way that Jesus could have been the Son of the God of Abraham since he didn't even agree with the teachings of the Old testament on many important points. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Abra. You're scaring me with that powerful glowing sword and crown. Are you jesus...or the reincarnate???
Just some comic relief for everybody. God knows we can use it right now. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The bible and Jesus were put on this Earth to make life interesting, and to cause interesting debates. What else would we have to argue about? Which movie is better? Star Wars or Lord of the Rings? Been there, done that,...boring Which Star Wars? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The bible and Jesus were put on this Earth to make life interesting, and to cause interesting debates. What else would we have to argue about? Which movie is better? Star Wars or Lord of the Rings? Been there, done that,...boring Which Star Wars? Oh my...you actually HAD to ask??? "The Phantom Menace" of course.  Let's not get into this on here please..... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The bible and Jesus were put on this Earth to make life interesting, and to cause interesting debates. What else would we have to argue about? Which movie is better? Star Wars or Lord of the Rings? Been there, done that,...boring Which Star Wars? Oh my...you actually HAD to ask??? "The Phantom Menace" of course. Let's not get into this on here please..... No comment! 
|
|
|
|
|
