Bible Questions? III

Beliefs contradict each other, facts do not argue with themselves.

When did Jesus require that? Regardless it is accomplished by using the terms in life, love God with all your might, turn the other cheek, give to those who ask.

 

Did you ask a question?

 

I have asked many, but that's between me and God. He has yet to get back to me

 

cool

 

Maybe he's waiting for you to open the door

 

Some beliefs contradict themselves but not all. If we are looking for contradictions then we may 'find' some but they won't be contradictions.

Facts argue with themselves often actually. Scientists argue over the interpretation of data all of the time.

 

Precisely, they argue over interpretation, the facts are just facts. The data is raw without interpretation.
The people who argue for powerful invisible spirit beings are not pointing to any fact at all. There is no data on powerful invisible spirit beings. We have data on the exchange of energy. That data was derived from the human energy system.

 

We didn't have any data on the existence of the atom but many took it on faith for centuries that it existed.

What many have said is that the Bible is not a matter of interpretation. That it is different from any other books including novel and technical. Which is one of the reasons given that the Bible is divinely inspired.

The Bible uses literary devices and defines everything for us. I mean, just read Daniel. The book of Daniel does not leave the reader to fend for themselves and to figure out what the figure in Nebuchadnezzar's dream represents, but the Bible does explain every detail. This same trend is omnipresent in the Bible. One of those examples is when Jesus calls to attention whether or not he is saying it plainly or a parable, or and allegory, or both and we know this through context and comparing it to rest of scripture.

One of the ways people found that the books belong together and were inspired were whether or not it referenced each other. All we need to understand the Bible is to use those references and take the context to get the meaning. When we change the values around, that's when we get some problems.

 

Well there is one big answer

 

The concept of the atom was first proposed by Indian and Greek philosophers in the 17th century, this is true. It is also true that this idea is put to scrutiny and found to be present in mutually verifiable observable phenomena. Our atomic model is accurate to the point that we can use atomic theory to produce, let's say nuclear chain reaction or images from MRI.
In every case where invisible spirit influences were thought to be the culprit, it turns out to be microbes or chemical imbalances. There is good reason to anticipate that reality is plain and observable.
That does not mean that I do not have an interpretation for spirit. My definition is we are spirit reaching toward spirit in all things. That all things are of the same substance and power. There is no opposing will in creation.

The ultimate way we gain context and meaning is through experiential conjugation. You wear the words you are reading. If you are interpreting the bible through the lens of having meaning consistent throughout based on words alone that is where the problems start and end. For instance, God commands not to kill, but also commands to kill. We make both claims according to our circumstance. We always attribute our choices to our good, or our God.
Now which command is consistent with the teaching of Jesus. Thou shall not kill is consistent, thou shall kill is not.

 

What I am saying is if we read the Bible with the lens that God is merely a metaphor for life and not an actual being, then we will come to different conclusion then the conclusions derived from following the line of reasoning that the Bible outlines.

As for thou shalt not kill, there is no reason why the rules given to man would also be based for God. We are obedient to him and not the other way around, but that he does love us. Also, many have argued that it is 'thou shalt not murder' and that murder is different than killing.

Those strange and alien works described by Isaiah was not something Jehovah God wished to do but that Jehovah God will be what he needs to be in order to ensure that we return to the Garden of Eden.

But as pointed out before, Jehovah God's commandment to his people has been made clear through his Son Yeshua and they are given a creed of obedience to cause no harm to any person, so that rules out the possibility of violent extremism. Anyone committing such things will not be called Christians by Jesus.

All I ask is to follow this line of reasoning and I guarantee to you that you will discover that God is more than just a thought or metaphor but an actual being that created this universe and animates both you and I to life.

 

Wasn't it much earlier? I thought it was around 560 bce by some greek philosopher that name escapes me.

Some things are just not that obvious or clear. There could be important factors that we are overlooking that we having even thought of.

Many people that suffering schizophrenia have been known to self injure themselves. Maybe the chain of events that lead to that chemical imbalance in the brain is caused by something currently not yet understood.

I like the old saying that the absence of evidence isn't the evidence of absence. It can also be said that we can't prove a negative, but that's a whole other story. The point is that, if God's word speaks truth and if it references that Satan is a real being deceiving the word, then that gives me good reason to believe why such a being exists.

Also, I want to add that MRI machines can only pick up limited stimulus in it's surroundings. There is no reason to believe that the MRI machines aren't picking up readings that it should. The human brain is also a machine and it picks up far more than MRI machines. All these machines pick up is which parts of the brain lights up, big whoop de doo.

 

That is precisely what I am saying. Do not get me wrong, we do not create ourselves. We create like our creator. We define the parameters of our circumstances through our pronouncements. Our true spirit is measured in the quality of our speaking, a man speaks from the abundance of his heart.

Many have argued for the interpretation that allows for contradiction. This is the trade of apologist. The interpretation that man killing man is inspired by good is erroneous in the light of the embodied conjugation of man killing man. That act is inspired by desperation. We always consider our motive to be good. Therefore the claim is God has inspired me to this. Understand the ones making these claims are the keepers of the history.


.

It rules out the possibility of killing.

.

All I ask is that we understand that our being is not a metaphor for theology.
No one comes to the father but by me. No one comes to the father except for the investment of his whole life. This is because love waits on invitation.

 

I don't know if we create like our creator. We can however be obedient to our creator.

Can you give any examples?

Simply arguing for something to be true does not make it true.

We can consider our motives to be true. Actually that is exactly what the Bible says, that we can consider ourselves good in our own eyes but that we should not. A person becomes wise when a person follows the advice of Jehovah.

Many through history have interpreted the events transpired with rose colored glasses and bias but that is what separates the Bible and most of history.

Yes it does.

A metaphor for theology? What do you mean by that?

No one can know the father except through Jesus and the commandments that he gives to his followers.

 

:coffee:

We can, but that doesn't make it so. Concepts are demonstrable and has been for many peeps.

Yeah, I know man. I know what an MRI is. I was saying that it won't be the first time that nature has proven us wrong.

lol

 

God created the world by speaking it into existence. We name the animals.

The daily headlines. A history book in the US as opposed to a history book in USSR.

True, applying the teaching demonstrates it's veracity. Which is why I suggested you take what I say with a grain of salt, you are the salt of the world, you live in this world according to your own verdicts, in eternity your verdicts don't matter at all.

That a theological model, a specialized vocabulary becomes the thing rather than the thing being described.

And his commandment is to love God with all your might, this is an investment of your whole life, Just as Jesus used the most extreme and unmistakable example of devotion, what it takes, the whole example of his life to show us the way. Jesus said he who believes in me, believes not in me, but in my father who sent me.

 

Yea, God did speak the world into existence, and Adam did name the animals. What happens after may be important. After A&E left the Garden the children after were made in the image of their parents that had sinned so that sin carried over. We are more in the image of them then we are in the image of God. When we are resurrected, we will be in the image of Jesus because Jesus replaced Adam as our father. But until then, we have carried over this sinful nature and only focusing on Jesus can we know God.

I believe that the Bible is different from the daily headlines, history books of opposing nations, is different because it points out it's own flaws in more grueling detail than the examples you give to me.

This is just a conflict of worldview.

I want you to take what I say with a grain of salt as well. I am just pointing out what I believe and why I feel that you are wrong. I was just stating the methods I used to come to my understandings and how you could find it useful in understanding the Bible. I will test the Bible using your methods, but I want you to know that I thought of it in that view and it didn't seem to work out in my mind.

Nice, I agree with that. We can point to the moon but it isn't the moon itself that we are describing. I just believe the Bible does describe the actuality of things and that we are this theology if we allow it to be.

When we believe in the Son we are better acquainted with the Father because the Son comes in the name of the father. If we recognize the Son we are also recognizing the Father. The pharisee's could not recognize him because they did not know him.

I agree with what you said, but how are we to show this love, what are the requirements what is the context, how are we to do these things? If we don't pinpoint those reasoning then we may risk generating our own sense of love and it make go against the love God defined for us.

For one, love may be understood as condemning another, but if God says do not condemn but to do something else then we are going against God's definition of what it is to love and how to love. So if we go against God's definition and define our own love, then that may not be love, that may be something other than Love.

 

Well you are positing belief here, which is a symbol chosen to represent an unknown variable.

Everything is an idea, and world view is the most far reaching idea there is.
If your world view is that there are evil beings which you cannot see trying do dominate your affections then you are likely to be reserved to say the least. You will defend yourself at every moments irritation, these in your mind are real beings existing outside of you over which you must take punitive action. If your world view is that God created the world and it is good, then every encounter becomes a Holy encounter. You will call upon holiness, mercy as God is merciful. Where our treasure lies there is our heart also. Our treasure is our world view, the value system by which we operate. And the value system or world view that you adhere to will automatically decide your responses.

Yes that theology can teach you about aspects of reality. Entertaining these theologies is a mental exercise. We feel tortured by forces which we appear to have no control over, we call this embodied sensation, being demonized, that does not mean that there are little guys running around with pitch forks.
We choose a symbol to represent the sensation. The sensation does not have a life apart from you.

If someone is thirsty give them a drink of water. If someone says to you fuck you, you say what can I do to help. The person standing before you is either the one that you crucified in your mind, or the one that will save you, this is the opportunity to demonstrate that God's love is in you. You cannot have it lest you share it with your brother, the measure you give is the measure you get.

Simply love does not seek its own but waits on invitation. Invitation is it's only requirement. Ask and you shall receive, we have not because we ask not.

 

I don't even know you.

It is not me period. As I have pointed out I do not condemn and yet, without any proof, you keep saying I do, why is that?

Interesting but I don't see how it answers the question.

Good, I was shaking in my boots.

Perhaps but this comment has nothing to do with what is being talked about.

My "basis" for it is, that although it does have a bit of the feel of the Scripture you mention, it is not the Scripture you mentioned and sometimes the interpolation of a truth is not always true itself.