Tweet
Re: Why does god allow natural disasters...?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: evanovitch</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: evanovitch</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Following Jesus can hold many surprises.
</div></div>
I agree with you here, very much. And in fact I would add that the real trick of the matter is the actual following and understanding of Jesus, which is exceptionally difficult, and so that is why people invent things out of whole cloth for which to follow him for that are opposite of what he supposedly taught, but soooooooo much easier to say you follow. </div></div>
u chose the right clause (mi a try memba if is a clause r a phrase dat) n widdin dat the important pawt is 'following Jesus'...if u dont believe in His existence den as i like to say, the rest is moot
now going awn to the rest of wat u said, if u dont immerse urself in Him, umiss the spirtual DISCERNMENT that He affords an den dat is when di fools rush in where even Angels fear to thread....
dat is y I aver and affirm dat having come down HImself, there is nothing new a parson a prophet can tell me dem get from God...He is all knwoing so wat could He have forgot to say wen He finally decided to come down dat go rung afta a long line of doing odda tings to get HIS message to us...PLUS HE inspired the Bible even if man pick an chose wat chapters fi put in r how fi wud it, but if u go wid di openining verses of Genesis and the Opening Verse of 1 John n u keep dat firmly in mind , all the KJV etc etc cannot pawt u from HIM....dat is discernment </div></div>
as an aside- do you find it an interesting question, when the subject of biblical inspiration comes out and why that claim must be made, that Yashua himself never wrote down- that we know of- what he taught...I've often considered why this is. We have sheafs and sheafs of writings from everyone else it would seem but him. Peter, James, Paul, especially.
Maybe Yashua himself is the "Q" source of Thomas and the synoptics.
It then follows, that once things do get written down, we see a pretty massive disservice done to our man. something he never taught, canonically speaking, or even so far as we know non-canonically as far as gospels go, suddenly is part of doctrine, because of Paul. And I think the suggestion that Yashua himself would allow his followers to be born of confusion, is kind of absurd, if all claims for who he is are granted.
And yet the canon as we have it did not exist for his first followers.
there is only one example I can think of where he wrote, but we don't know what it was. tradition says it was the names of all the people present and their sins, that he wrote in the dirt, but we do know at least from that canonical source, that he could in fact write. Khalil Gibran wrote a beautiful short story about it. Referring of course to the adulterous woman- one of the most important stories although it's origin debated heatedly due to manuscript issues.
it is posited that the proof of God is in the observation of natural law- in other words, by observation alone it may be possible to conceive of God and understand goodness and morality. This is how the Catholics reconcile good people who may not have ever heard of Jesus so would not know to actually believe in him, but still being in general good people and so getting into heaven. In fact, this is also how Jesus reconciled that very issue, but that's besides the point.
If there is a God, who is benevolent and morally just, this seems obvious. But this also presents some rather profound logical issues, especially regarding justice, the purpose of life in the view of an afterlife etc.
I'd like to drop that puzzle actually, as it is exceedingly interesting and speaks directly to Britisha's and QL's ontological variant.
Similarly, the Buddha discovered the dharma- like gravity. It's self evidentiary in nature. If that is actually the case, then the bible can only be a fallible human construct, sometimes right, but sometimes crippled by limits of contemporary understanding, which sometimes becomes clearly seen where Nature has been understood.
Nobody for example, would accept a book that was written that stated rocks always fall up into the sky and never come down, when clearly, that is not the case. For a biblical example, nobody today would think to try and get a white striped sheep by showing the parent straight white wool and straight black wool animals something striped while they were having boom boom. At the time of writing- I think it was Jacob- this was thought to produce such effect, now it is proven from natural understanding, observation, that this is not the case.
What then to do with this Biblical claim?
I'm not suggesting for an instant the baby be thrown out with the bath water- just that we can use as you say, discernment, to uncover these fallibilities, and we shouldn't be so upset when they are found. And we actually have a model for this in Yashua himself.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: evanovitch</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: evanovitch</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Following Jesus can hold many surprises.
</div></div>
I agree with you here, very much. And in fact I would add that the real trick of the matter is the actual following and understanding of Jesus, which is exceptionally difficult, and so that is why people invent things out of whole cloth for which to follow him for that are opposite of what he supposedly taught, but soooooooo much easier to say you follow. </div></div>
u chose the right clause (mi a try memba if is a clause r a phrase dat) n widdin dat the important pawt is 'following Jesus'...if u dont believe in His existence den as i like to say, the rest is moot
now going awn to the rest of wat u said, if u dont immerse urself in Him, umiss the spirtual DISCERNMENT that He affords an den dat is when di fools rush in where even Angels fear to thread....
dat is y I aver and affirm dat having come down HImself, there is nothing new a parson a prophet can tell me dem get from God...He is all knwoing so wat could He have forgot to say wen He finally decided to come down dat go rung afta a long line of doing odda tings to get HIS message to us...PLUS HE inspired the Bible even if man pick an chose wat chapters fi put in r how fi wud it, but if u go wid di openining verses of Genesis and the Opening Verse of 1 John n u keep dat firmly in mind , all the KJV etc etc cannot pawt u from HIM....dat is discernment </div></div>
as an aside- do you find it an interesting question, when the subject of biblical inspiration comes out and why that claim must be made, that Yashua himself never wrote down- that we know of- what he taught...I've often considered why this is. We have sheafs and sheafs of writings from everyone else it would seem but him. Peter, James, Paul, especially.
Maybe Yashua himself is the "Q" source of Thomas and the synoptics.
It then follows, that once things do get written down, we see a pretty massive disservice done to our man. something he never taught, canonically speaking, or even so far as we know non-canonically as far as gospels go, suddenly is part of doctrine, because of Paul. And I think the suggestion that Yashua himself would allow his followers to be born of confusion, is kind of absurd, if all claims for who he is are granted.
And yet the canon as we have it did not exist for his first followers.
there is only one example I can think of where he wrote, but we don't know what it was. tradition says it was the names of all the people present and their sins, that he wrote in the dirt, but we do know at least from that canonical source, that he could in fact write. Khalil Gibran wrote a beautiful short story about it. Referring of course to the adulterous woman- one of the most important stories although it's origin debated heatedly due to manuscript issues.
it is posited that the proof of God is in the observation of natural law- in other words, by observation alone it may be possible to conceive of God and understand goodness and morality. This is how the Catholics reconcile good people who may not have ever heard of Jesus so would not know to actually believe in him, but still being in general good people and so getting into heaven. In fact, this is also how Jesus reconciled that very issue, but that's besides the point.
If there is a God, who is benevolent and morally just, this seems obvious. But this also presents some rather profound logical issues, especially regarding justice, the purpose of life in the view of an afterlife etc.
I'd like to drop that puzzle actually, as it is exceedingly interesting and speaks directly to Britisha's and QL's ontological variant.
Similarly, the Buddha discovered the dharma- like gravity. It's self evidentiary in nature. If that is actually the case, then the bible can only be a fallible human construct, sometimes right, but sometimes crippled by limits of contemporary understanding, which sometimes becomes clearly seen where Nature has been understood.
Nobody for example, would accept a book that was written that stated rocks always fall up into the sky and never come down, when clearly, that is not the case. For a biblical example, nobody today would think to try and get a white striped sheep by showing the parent straight white wool and straight black wool animals something striped while they were having boom boom. At the time of writing- I think it was Jacob- this was thought to produce such effect, now it is proven from natural understanding, observation, that this is not the case.
What then to do with this Biblical claim?
I'm not suggesting for an instant the baby be thrown out with the bath water- just that we can use as you say, discernment, to uncover these fallibilities, and we shouldn't be so upset when they are found. And we actually have a model for this in Yashua himself.
mi a go read dis piece by piece so here goes wid di fuss piece whe ketch my yeye dem 
Comment