Mom writes "goodbye" letter to baby she is about to abort

[alwight]

You are entitled to your opinion, but it being factual or not is a probably a rather different matter altogether.

No, sir. If my opinion of an, let's say, argumentative speech is that the argumentative speech is a "just-so" story, or that it is a poem, that doesn't mean that an argumentative speech is what I believe (ignorantly) that it is.
You seem to not understand this basic fact.
So, once again, you don't know what a parable is.

"Sir"? (Presumes as sign of respect to my great age if not intelligence.) lain:
Anyway, you may have to understand that I don't exactly hold the Bible to the same level of esteem as you do, which goes for its imo "just-so" parables.

Perhaps you are just a bit miffed about my referring to certain Biblical tracts as "just-so" stories.
The truth hurts perhaps?

The truth that you don't know what a parable is? No, it doesn't hurt me.
I will give you two hints: 1. the parable is not a biblical "just-so" story; 2. the parable is not the invention of Jesus Christ.

1. It is!
2. Never said it was.

I'm sure I was probably made to read it at one time. :think:

Finally, a punctual answer. So, you didn't follow my advice to read it one more time and see that its intent is not at all to make you feel guilty.

I don't usually do as I'm told.

You presumably think that the Pharisees were still controlling things even when it was the Jewish crowd who actually decided it was Jesus who would die?
Perhaps that's a theological moot point that I'll leave to theologians to philosophise over.

Doesn't have anything to do with what I said.

You seem to have conveniently forgotten that you told me that the Pharisees killed Jesus, which perhaps you will now concede isn't exactly what Biblical scripture says. If this is an indication of your theological astuteness then we may both be in trouble here.

]
I'm quite content to remain a rubbish theologian.

Good. You could say that about your historical knowledge also. You wouldn't be lying.

Meeeooow

Yes, but I would have preferred something more specific than that?

Aww...you want me to spoon-feed you?

Yes please.

No, no. I gave you hints. I mentioned Augustin. You do the work (if you are interested).

I don't want hints and I don't do homework any more. You write lots of fuzzy words that actually don't mean anything specific and leave me to fill in all the mysterious gaps and then pretend it was my fault for not reading it. :bang:

Which church specifically?
Are they all correct?

There is only One Church. Follow the history of christianity; it can't lead you to Joseph Smith, or other local pastor from Bubba's butt Arkansas.

I don't know what planet you live on but Christians around here come in many different flavours that cannot simply be fudged together.

Edit: That the Gospels are written by anonymous evangelists is what I actually said, which is something accepted by most theologians.

Let me remind you what you said:

Originally Posted by alwight
"But you personally don't actually seem to know how real Biblical hell is, or even if it exists at all in a real sense? You simply seem to accept what an anonymous gospel evangelist has written concerning Jesus Christ some decades after the claimed events?
Originally Posted by alwight
But you personally don't actually seem to know how real Biblical hell is, or even if it exists at all in a real sense? You simply seem to accept what an anonymous gospel evangelist has written concerning Jesus Christ some decades after the claimed events?

Thanks for that but it looks like my memory of what I wrote was pretty good for an old guy.

You said that I, PERSONALLY, don't know what the biblical hell is and I just follow what an anonymous gospel evangelist has written.

Look again, firstly I used the words "seem to know" meaning that it was nevertheless still up for debate but also it was formed as a question not a statement of fact. That's what the "?" means btw.

The authors of the four Gospels are anonymous, correct?

Christians nevertheless typically believe the Gospels, right?

Without the Gospels how can there even be Christianity?

So where is my error? :sherlock:

I don't follow an "anonymous" evangelist. I follow the Christian Church.

I see, so you follow an institution not the Gospels? :liberals:
Are you a true Christian?

Yes, back in the days of Isaac Newton science and theology were pretty much the same thing called "Natural Philosophy". Perhaps these days people tend to specialise rather more, since science has no use for a supernatural, but I think that theology can still be considered a type of philosophy.

))))
So, for you, Socrates, Buddha, Gandhi, Aristotle are theologians while Augustin of Hippo, Anselm of Canterbury, Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin are mystic philosophers.

I think you're making more invalid assumptions about me and your record hasn't been all that good so far.

(Buddha the theologian and Calvin the mystic thinker, hi, hi))).

Good one, old man. You gave me a good laugh!

But maybe I should read more about Buddha some time.

Quite right of course.

Now, that is a relief!
Alwight (the theologian or the philosopher?) agrees with me.

Makes a nice change.

I still haven't quite decided if you are deliberately being condescending and patronising or if you just are a condescending and patronising person? :liberals:

I don't know...it's up to you to decide. I only want to tell you that I like you a lot. Because you made me laugh earlier.

Not sure how complimentary that was meant to be?

Well, you've not exactly enlightened me any as to what specifically you think hell is, care to have another go?
Hell not being love or any such thing doesn't really do much for my understanding, but we can dismiss the whole lake of fire thing I gather?

...read posts number 116, 118...

Already have, you still aren't saying much even with a high word count.

]
That you might not be a true Christian?
What is a true Christian?
Something else you don't want to be too clear about it seems.

Don't you believe that it is strange to give certificates of true christian based on how people write the word "christian"?

(Are you taking some sort of medicine for old age? Because if you do, they don't seem to be of much help)

It's a sign of respect to capitalise the "C" (it is a proper noun after all). Many Christians here would seem to agree with me imo. If you don't respect the word "Christian" then perhaps you can't really be a true Christian. But since you don't seem to follow the Gospels anyway than I perhaps already knew that.

Has life been degenerating since his time which explains most of the ills and woes of life created by a supposedly perfect God or not?

You are very slow in processing the information. I already gave you the explanation for ill and death since I said that sin is perceived by christians as an ontological disease (!) that leads to death.

More insults I see, maybe you think that will divert my enquiry? However my thought processing seem infinitely snappier than any clear responses coming from you.
Indulge me Simona

1, Is the story of Adam and Eve literal truth or not, care to tell me now what you believe? Y/N

2. How old is the Earth?

3. Is life a cursed creation or actually the imperfect result of billions of years of Darwinian evolution?

I wonder how you will not answer this time? :think:

I predict you'll continue to duck and weave.

I'm not your nurse. I'm not gonna spoon-feed you.

Obviously, but perhaps you can't anyway?

You seem to make plenty of inaccurate assumption about me.

Can you imagine I thought you were a 15 years old boy?))))))

Yes, I can imagine that you could imagine all kinds of things that aren't actually true.

Sorry not good enough, in real world situations where abortion choices are or have to be made, what specifically would you do? Condemn, support or just prevaricate endlessly?

I already answered you. I wouldn't condemn, neither support it.
Abortion means death. I am a christian. I am against death.

Death is a fact of life. As a small "c" christian (not a true Christian) making perhaps tough choices in specific situations is not something you do, responsibly can be avoided, oh well.

Christ is risen!

Is it Easter already, doesn't time fly! Well it does when you're old like me Simona.

]
Now you're just being childish and trying to be deliberately insulting, I wonder just how old you are Simona88?
Is that a girls name? I presume you aren't 88 are you?

You presume very good: I am a woman, my name is Simona (pronounced "See-mo-na") and I was born in '88.

I'm sharp as a tack in my more lucid moments.

 

[JosephR]

Lol great post my English friend

 

[Simona88]

Well, I promised to stay away from this thread, but it is simply irresistible. It's more powerful than me. Sorry, people.

You seem to have conveniently forgotten that you told me that the Pharisees killed Jesus, which perhaps you will now concede isn't exactly what Biblical scripture says. If this is an indication of your theological astuteness then we may both be in trouble here.

John 11:47-54:

47 Then the chief priests and the Pharisees called a meeting of the Sanhedrin.

“What are we accomplishing?” they asked. “Here is this man performing many signs. 48 If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and then the Romans will come and take away both our temple and our nation.”

49 Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, spoke up, “You know nothing at all! 50 You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish.”

51 He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation, 52 and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one. 53 So from that day on they plotted to take his life.

54 Therefore Jesus no longer moved about publicly among the people of Judea. Instead he withdrew to a region near the wilderness, to a village called Ephraim, where he stayed with his disciples.

I don't want hints and I don't do homework any more.

Why not? You are retired (not tired, I hope) and thus, have plenty of time to study.

The authors of the four Gospels are anonymous, correct?

No.

Christians nevertheless typically believe the Gospels, right?

Christianity typically believe the gospel (good news). The gospel was first transmitted orally.

I see, so you follow an institution not the Gospels? :liberals:
Are you a true Christian?

No. The gospel was transmitted by the Church (formed at the Pentecost).

Also, the Church is not an institution, but communion with God.

As for whether I am or not a true christian, I guess I am not since I write the word christian with little c.

But maybe I should read more about Buddha some time.

Good idea. Accept a little advice from me: don't search him on the theology section. ))

Not sure how complimentary that was meant to be?

It was very complementary. You gave me a good laugh.

Already have, you still aren't saying much even with a high word count.

I see. Could it be that...the problem comes from you?

It's a sign of respect to capitalise the "C" (it is a proper noun after all). Many Christians here would seem to agree with me imo. If you don't respect the word "Christian" then perhaps you can't really be a true Christian. But since you don't seem to follow the Gospels anyway than I perhaps already knew that.

In the grammar of my language, christian is not a proper noun, but a common noun.

I don't seem to follow the catholic and protestant gospels, would have been more correct to say.

More insults I see, maybe you think that will divert my enquiry? However my thought processing seem infinitely snappier than any clear responses coming from you.
Indulge me Simona

Snappy indeed. You ask me about original sin and associate it with darwinian evolution.

1, Is the story of Adam and Eve literal truth or not, care to tell me now what you believe? Y/N

It is truth.

2. How old is the Earth?

I don't know. I also fail to see the connection with the original sin.

3. Is life a cursed creation or actually the imperfect result of billions of years of Darwinian evolution?

Well, since you give me only two stupid options, I will answer my way and say that God is Life.

Death is a fact of life. As a small "c" christian (not a true Christian) making perhaps tough choices in specific situations is not something you do, responsibly can be avoided, oh well.
Is it Easter already, doesn't time fly! Well it does when you're old like me Simona.

Nope. Death is not a fact of life, but a parasite that was defeated. Life trampled death with death.
Christ is risen!

 

[alwight]

You seem to have conveniently forgotten that you told me that the Pharisees killed Jesus, which perhaps you will now concede isn't exactly what Biblical scripture says. If this is an indication of your theological astuteness then we may both be in trouble here.

John 11:47-54:

47 Then the chief priests and the Pharisees called a meeting of the Sanhedrin.

“What are we accomplishing?” they asked. “Here is this man performing many signs. 48 If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and then the Romans will come and take away both our temple and our nation.”

49 Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, spoke up, “You know nothing at all! 50 You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish.”

51 He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation, 52 and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one. 53 So from that day on they plotted to take his life.

54 Therefore Jesus no longer moved about publicly among the people of Judea. Instead he withdrew to a region near the wilderness, to a village called Ephraim, where he stayed with his disciples.

No, all this shows me Simona is that whoever wrote Gospel John was somewhat of a conspiracy theorist who btw often had rather different ideas from the authors of the three synoptic Gospels. What it doesn't show is that the Pharisees actually killed Jesus.
The author of G.John apparently needed there to be evil conspiring villains and of course the Pharisees were most convenient for that role, theology can be fun if you're not compelled to believe it all.

The authors of the four Gospels are anonymous, correct?

No.

I don't think you will find many reputable theologians and researchers who will agree with you there Simona. The four Biblical Gospels accounts are much more likely to have been fairly honest dramatized accounts written anonymously during following decades but well after the supposed events, for evangelical purposes. G.John being the latest. They are actually called the Gospels "According" to... not the Gospels "by"... the names are simply thought to be a nominal convenience.

Christians nevertheless typically believe the Gospels, right?

Christianity typically believe the gospel (good news). The gospel was first transmitted orally.

The original source material for most of the written Gospels themselves however is widely thought to be something called the "Q Document" or "Q Source", Google it.

Already have, you still aren't saying much even with a high word count.

I see. Could it be that...the problem comes from you?

In your case perhaps yes to some degree. Why not try and make it more interesting, put in some actual specific details and less of the "happy clappy" "fuzzy" stuff maybe?

It's a sign of respect to capitalise the "C" (it is a proper noun after all). Many Christians here would seem to agree with me imo. If you don't respect the word "Christian" then perhaps you can't really be a true Christian. But since you don't seem to follow the Gospels anyway than I perhaps already knew that.

In the grammar of my language, christian is not a proper noun, but a common noun.

I don't seem to follow the catholic and protestant gospels, would have been more correct to say.

What would be a proper noun in your language then or aren't there any?
However if you are using English for English speaking people then why not try to comply if you don't want to give the wrong impression?

More insults I see, maybe you think that will divert my enquiry? However my thought processing seem infinitely snappier than any clear responses coming from you.
Indulge me Simona

Snappy indeed. You ask me about original sin and associate it with darwinian evolution.

Bear with me, I have a reason, being partly that you can't associate Darwinian evolution with "Original Sin".

1, Is the story of Adam and Eve literal truth or not, care to tell me now what you believe? Y/N

It is truth.

I'm still not clear if that is a fuzzy faith based allegorical "truth" or the literal truth I actually asked for Y/N? :idunno:
I suspect you don't really want to say.

2. How old is the Earth?

I don't know. I also fail to see the connection with the original sin.

I want to know if you think life has evolved over many millions of years or miraculously created a few thousand years ago.
I'm trying to pin you down on a few specific details rather than just the fuzzy, warm, lovey feeling you seem to have.

I could also suggest that you could easily go and find some excellent and entertaining scientific work from many different disciplines on why the Earth is thought to be about 4.5 billion years old. However I rather suspect that you don't actually want to bother yourself by reading any of it, your "Good Samaritan" perhaps?

3. Is life a cursed creation or actually the imperfect result of billions of years of Darwinian evolution?

Well, since you give me only two stupid options, I will answer my way and say that God is Life.

:yawn:

Death is a fact of life. As a small "c" christian (not a true Christian) making perhaps tough choices in specific situations is not something you do, responsibly can be avoided, oh well.
Is it Easter already, doesn't time fly! Well it does when you're old like me Simona.

Nope. Death is not a fact of life, but a parasite that was defeated. Life trampled death with death.
Christ is risen!

I'd bet that gave you a nice warm fuzzy glow Simona, right? :cloud9:

 

[Simona88]

No, all this shows me Simona is that whoever wrote Gospel John was somewhat of a conspiracy theorist who btw often had rather different ideas from the authors of the three synoptic Gospels. What it doesn't show is that the Pharisees actually killed Jesus.

According to whom is Saint John (or the writer of the gospel) a conspiracy theorist?
You guessed, of course, that I am not waiting for your opinions, but for studies. So, I wait, the authors and their studies where they explain why would the writer of the gospel blame on the pharisees something they are not responsible for.

The author of G.John apparently needed there to be evil conspiring villains and of course the Pharisees were most convenient for that role, theology can be fun if you're not compelled to believe it all.

According to? Title and author, please.
Also, since you said that the Romans killed Christ, I want to see what do you base this on.
So I expect the following: title and author (more than one, please) that explains why would the Romans be interested and bothered by what Jesus Christ had to say about the pharisees.

I don't think you will find many reputable theologians and researchers who will agree with you there Simona. The four Biblical Gospels accounts are much more likely to have been fairly honest dramatized accounts written anonymously during following decades but well after the supposed events, for evangelical purposes. G.John being the latest. They are actually called the Gospels "According" to... not the Gospels "by"... the names are simply thought to be a nominal convenience.

Good. Now you probably understand why I believe the truth of the Holy Scripture finds its validation in the Church and not the other way around.

In your case perhaps yes to some degree. Why not try and make it more interesting, put in some actual specific details and less of the "happy clappy" "fuzzy" stuff maybe?

If for you, living an eternity of frustration for not have fulfilled your purpose in life is a "happy clappy", "fuzzy" stuff, than I am afraid I can't make it more interesting.

What would be a proper noun in your language then or aren't there any?

A proper noun would be "Christ", while a common noun "christian".

However if you are using English for English speaking people then why not try to comply if you don't want to give the wrong impression?

I agree. What it seems strange (to me) is to say that someone is/isn't a christian based on how he writes the word "christian".

Bear with me, I have a reason, being partly that you can't associate Darwinian evolution with "Original Sin".

Indeed, I don't. Especially that the problem of sin came up with you saying that it is a doctrine that has the purpose to make you feel guilty. In my Church it isn't.

I'm still not clear if that is a fuzzy faith based allegorical "truth" or the literal truth I actually asked for Y/N? :idunno:
I suspect you don't really want to say.

Truth is not allegorical or literal. Truth is truth.

I want to know if you think life has evolved over many millions of years or miraculously created a few thousand years ago.

Oh. I believe it was created by God. I don't know the age of the Earth.

I could also suggest that you could easily go and find some excellent and entertaining scientific work from many different disciplines on why the Earth is thought to be about 4.5 billion years old. However I rather suspect that you don't actually want to bother yourself by reading any of it, your "Good Samaritan" perhaps?

You guessed it. I am more interested in the Good Samaritan than in anything else.

I'd bet that gave you a nice warm fuzzy glow Simona, right? :cloud9:

Yet, Christ is risen!

 

[alwight]

No, all this shows me Simona is that whoever wrote Gospel John was somewhat of a conspiracy theorist who btw often had rather different ideas from the authors of the three synoptic Gospels. What it doesn't show is that the Pharisees actually killed Jesus.

According to whom is Saint John (or the writer of the gospel) a conspiracy theorist?
You guessed, of course, that I am not waiting for your opinions, but for studies. So, I wait, the authors and their studies where they explain why would the writer of the gospel blame on the pharisees something they are not responsible for.

According to me was what the sentence was about, what it shows me and why, you don't have to agree. I don't have to seek official confirmation for what I believe even if you do, it seems.

The author of G.John apparently needed there to be evil conspiring villains and of course the Pharisees were most convenient for that role, theology can be fun if you're not compelled to believe it all.

According to? Title and author, please.
Also, since you said that the Romans killed Christ, I want to see what do you base this on.
So I expect the following: title and author (more than one, please) that explains why would the Romans be interested and bothered by what Jesus Christ had to say about the pharisees.

Alright then perhaps, if you want to believe that the Pharisees actually killed Jesus, believe away it won't worry me, only that I also believe that crucifixion is recognised as a typically Roman method of public execution and I'm not aware that the Pharisees would even be allowed to control who was publically executed in a Roman controlled state.
As a story line and hackneyed plot the dastardly Pharisees conspiring to remove a threat to their authority and power at all costs almost works in a way, almost. :think:

I don't think you will find many reputable theologians and researchers who will agree with you there Simona. The four Biblical Gospels accounts are much more likely to have been fairly honest dramatized accounts written anonymously during following decades but well after the supposed events, for evangelical purposes. G.John being the latest. They are actually called the Gospels "According" to... not the Gospels "by"... the names are simply thought to be a nominal convenience.

Good. Now you probably understand why I believe the truth of the Holy Scripture finds its validation in the Church and not the other way around.

I prefer to do my own thinking rather than what I am told to believe and do by an institution perhaps controlled by dastardly "Pharisees" more interested in their own authority and power at all costs... I could write a Gospel with that story line.

In your case perhaps yes to some degree. Why not try and make it more interesting, put in some actual specific details and less of the "happy clappy" "fuzzy" stuff maybe?

If for you, living an eternity of frustration for not have fulfilled your purpose in life is a "happy clappy", "fuzzy" stuff, than I am afraid I can't make it more interesting.

So you presumably think that the consequences of not doing what is deemed right by God are eternal and frustration? You haven't said a lake of fire exactly but maybe we're making some progress. Whatever you believe hell is, it lasts for an eternity and isn't very pleasant.

What would be a proper noun in your language then or aren't there any?

A proper noun would be "Christ", while a common noun "christian".

It seems that in your language someone's name is proper but a derivative of it isn't. My spell checker always underlines an un-capitalised "christian" but for you that isn't the case presumably, unless you are using it set up in "English" of course?

However if you are using English for English speaking people then why not try to comply if you don't want to give the wrong impression?

I agree. What it seems strange (to me) is to say that someone is/isn't a christian based on how he writes the word "christian".

Your English is infinitely better than my, whatever yours is, sorry if you already told me.

Bear with me, I have a reason, being partly that you can't associate Darwinian evolution with "Original Sin".

Indeed, I don't. Especially that the problem of sin came up with you saying that it is a doctrine that has the purpose to make you feel guilty. In my Church it isn't.

I didn't say that the purpose of Original Sin was guilt, I was talking about "sin" generally. The purpose of Original Sin is typically (imo) an apologetic device to explain an obviously imperfect and often cruel world apparently created by a perfect God. God's perfect creation spoiled by man, man is to blame not God etc. I suppose that was about the best apologetics could come up with.
"In my church". So you do accept that Christian churches are not all the same and may believe in different things or methods? So again, who are the true Christians then and why?

I'm still not clear if that is a fuzzy faith based allegorical "truth" or the literal truth I actually asked for Y/N? :idunno:
I suspect you don't really want to say.

Truth is not allegorical or literal. Truth is truth.

Truth is that that was avoiding the question, are you really 26 or are you playing kid's games here?
An actual biblical Adam & Eve living in an actual biblical Garden of Eden before the coming of an actual biblical global flood a few thousand years ago can only be true or false issues, not something fuzzy and vague in between.

I want to know if you think life has evolved over many millions of years or miraculously created a few thousand years ago.

Oh. I believe it was created by God. I don't know the age of the Earth.

You apparently have no wish to understand how it actually was created? And then you want to lecture me about my understanding of parables and lack of enthusiasm to (re)read them.

I could also suggest that you could easily go and find some excellent and entertaining scientific work from many different disciplines on why the Earth is thought to be about 4.5 billion years old. However I rather suspect that you don't actually want to bother yourself by reading any of it, your "Good Samaritan" perhaps?

You guessed it. I am more interested in the Good Samaritan than in anything else.

Except other parables and fuzzy stuff perhaps?
Maybe avoidance is your way of dealing with life more generally Simona?
Making no hard choices, abortion say (to be on-topic at last) when choices are generally required isn't always an available option. Not choosing just gets you the default choice anyway and is mainly for cowards too afraid to make human choices (imo).
Would God really respect those who were too afraid to use the brain they think he gave them?

I'd bet that gave you a nice warm fuzzy glow Simona, right? :cloud9:

Yet, Christ is risen!

Halleluiah!

Was that the right response in happy clappy land Simona?

 

[Simona88]

According to me was what the sentence was about, what it shows me and why, you don't have to agree. I don't have to seek official confirmation for what I believe even if you do, it seems.

Of course I don't agree. What I am asking from you is to give me your reasons (because you must base on something your opinions, right?) for the claims you made. That Saint John (or the anonymous writer of the gospel) was a conspiracy theorist.

Alright then perhaps, if you want to believe that the Pharisees actually killed Jesus, believe away it won't worry me, only that I also believe that crucifixion is recognised as a typically Roman method of public execution and I'm not aware that the Pharisees would even be allowed to control who was publically executed in a Roman controlled state.

The Romans were the executors of Christ' crucification. But His death was asked by the pharisees. They are the real murderers.

Why would Christ represent a menace for the Roman Empire since His activity was anything but political?

I wait for the studies.

As a story line and hackneyed plot the dastardly Pharisees conspiring to remove a threat to their authority and power at all costs almost works in a way, almost. :think:

Why almost? I wait for studies that corroborate what you claim.

I prefer to do my own thinking rather than what I am told to believe and do by an institution perhaps controlled by dastardly "Pharisees" more interested in their own authority and power at all costs... I could write a Gospel with that story line.

Where is your own thinking? The studies that corroborate your views, or keep your opinions and "own thinking" for yourself.

So you presumably think that the consequences of not doing what is deemed right by God are eternal and frustration? You haven't said a lake of fire exactly but maybe we're making some progress. Whatever you believe hell is, it lasts for an eternity and isn't very pleasant.

I already told you that I am over the right-wrong opposition. The matter is life or death. If someone is outside of God (who is life) than he is dead (spiritually dead).
Hell is the consequence of failing your purpose in life: uniting with God.

"In my church". So you do accept that Christian churches are not all the same and may believe in different things or methods? So again, who are the true Christians then and why?

Sorry, but I don't give certificates of true christian. I believe the eastern orthodox church has the best expression of God and has kept the gospel unaltered.

Truth is that that was avoiding the question, are you really 26 or are you playing kid's games here?
An actual biblical Adam & Eve living in an actual biblical Garden of Eden before the coming of an actual biblical global flood a few thousand years ago can only be true or false issues, not something fuzzy and vague in between.

Your premise is false. I believe Genesis to be truth. It talks about the creation of the cosmos, but its purpose is not mainly to talk about that, its purpose is to show why God created us.
I believe Moses got this revelation from God (revelation is truth by excellence), but I don't know what Moses saw, nor can put myself in his place.

You apparently have no wish to understand how it actually was created? And then you want to lecture me about my understanding of parables and lack of enthusiasm to (re)read them.

I am interested in how we were created. Only because I can't give you more details, it doesn't mean I am not.
If you have been present at the creation of the cosmos, please, don't keep me in suspense.

Except other parables and fuzzy stuff perhaps?

Practically, everything that surrounds Jesus Christ.

Maybe avoidance is your way of dealing with life more generally Simona?
Making no hard choices, abortion say (to be on-topic at last) when choices are generally required isn't always an available option. Not choosing just gets you the default choice anyway and is mainly for cowards too afraid to make human choices (imo).

I can't make human choices in the place of others. Each one creates his one hell.

Would God really respect those who were too afraid to use the brain they think he gave them?

For sure not. One of the reasons Christ spoke in parables was to restore intelligence back to its right status of virtue.
So, his message was open, but not direct. So that people use their own heads. They didn't, and the result: crucification.

I guess the eternal panic of the mediocrity in front of the freedom in Spirit will never end.

 

[alwight]

Of course I don't agree. What I am asking from you is to give me your reasons (because you must base on something your opinions, right?) for the claims you made. That Saint John (or the anonymous writer of the gospel) was a conspiracy theorist.

But I don't need a supposed wise person to tell me what my opinion is thanks.
You told me that the Pharisees killed Jesus, why are you picking on them particularly?
The Jewish crowd wanted it done is the usual story here.
The Romans arguably also wanted it done too because Jesus was a bad example to their authority.
G.John however even purports to know the inside workings of conspiring Pharisees and that Jesus raising the dead didn't meet with their approval perhaps.

I don't believe in miracles, or that the dead rise or that the Gospels are factual accounts. Those are my opinions too, show me that dead people come back to life and I will reconsider.

I wait for the studies.

Yes I'll see what I can do right after you provide evidence that people can come back from the dead outside of fictitious evangelising fantasy stories and dramatised accounts.

I already told you that I am over the right-wrong opposition. The matter is life or death. If someone is outside of God (who is life) than he is dead (spiritually dead).
Hell is the consequence of failing your purpose in life: uniting with God.

:yawn:

Your premise is false. I believe Genesis to be truth. It talks about the creation of the cosmos, but its purpose is not mainly to talk about that, its purpose is to show why God created us.
I believe Moses got this revelation from God (revelation is truth by excellence), but I don't know what Moses saw, nor can put myself in his place.

If you ever did search out any empirical truth you'd fear for your preconceived beliefs which is why for you it's best kept warm and fuzzy imo.

I am interested in how we were created. Only because I can't give you more details, it doesn't mean I am not.
If you have been present at the creation of the cosmos, please, don't keep me in suspense.

Correction, clearly you don't want to understand what real evidence and science demonstrates probably did happen in the past because you fear it might not match what you want to believe.

Practically, everything that surrounds Jesus Christ.

Do you have nuns in your religion? Maybe you already are Sister Simona? :think:

I can't make human choices in the place of others. Each one creates his one hell.

You could but instead you prefer to avoid choice and the required courage to make them when they are tough.

For sure not. One of the reasons Christ spoke in parables was to restore intelligence back to its right status of virtue.
So, his message was open, but not direct. So that people use their own heads. They didn't, and the result: crucification.

I guess the eternal panic of the mediocrity in front of the freedom in Spirit will never end.

I believe that the words attributed to a man called Jesus were in fact written by later anonymous evangelists for dramatic effect.
I can remember many inspiring stories but mediocre words are quickly forgotten.

 

[Simona88]

But I don't need a supposed wise person to tell me what my opinion is thanks.

That's not what I'm asking from you. I ask you to give me reasons on which you base the very particular opinion that Saint John was a conspiracy theorist.

You told me that the Pharisees killed Jesus, why are you picking on them particularly?
The Jewish crowd wanted it done is the usual story here.
The Romans arguably also wanted it done too because Jesus was a bad example to their authority.

:loser: The pharisees are jewish.

G.John however even purports to know the inside workings of conspiring Pharisees and that Jesus raising the dead didn't meet with their approval perhaps.

No "perhaps", please.
Saint John is the Apostle of Jesus Christ and an eye witness of the events of Christ' life.
Also, it wasn't the rise from death of Christ that didn't meet the pharisees approval, but something else. Something that got Christ crucified for. The kind of words that you either accept, either reject with atrocious fury and frustration. There was no middle way. Same goes with the stoning of Saint Stephen (the first martyr of the church). What is that got the pharisees so furious about Stephen's speech?

I don't believe in miracles, or that the dead rise or that the Gospels are factual accounts. Those are my opinions too, show me that dead people come back to life and I will reconsider.

I don't really care what you believe. You showed your ignorance more than once. Your opinions mean zero to me.

However, I still wait for some early writings, studies, researches for your claim about the gospel of John being written by a conspiracy theorist.

Do you have nuns in your religion? Maybe you already are Sister Simona? :think:

Sister or not, I wait for the early writings, studies and researches that point Saint John as a conspiracy theorist and what was his conspiracy.

I believe that the words attributed to a man called Jesus were in fact written by later anonymous evangelists for dramatic effect.

You believe based on what? Early writings, studies, researches, or else, I am not interested.

 

[IMJerusha]

Death is just a part of life IMJ, I can accept that, but I don't want to go too soon. Nobody lives forever, even those who currently can delude themselves that they will.lain:

Courtesy of Yeshua, we can live forever. The day after my Mother died, just a short time after my Father, I was given a precious gift, a visit from both of them. They were together and they looked like they were in their prime and they were very happy. Likewise, my Mother received a visit from her Mother a few months after she died. In that visit, my Grandmother told my Mom that she had seen Yeshua, that she was where He was and my Mom was not to mourn any longer because she was so happy. Now, I don't expect you to believe all this but the reason I'm telling you is because it was real. If it wasn't, I wouldn't be here. After everything that has happened in my life, I should be an atheist but I believe what my Mother saw and I believe what I saw. Faith is a very small and very powerful thing and it's the difference between eternal life and eternal death. You have a choice to put out your hand in faith or keep it to yourself. One small act of faith is all God is asking for and He won't disappoint you. He will take you on the walk of your life!

 

[alwight]

That's not what I'm asking from you. I ask you to give me reasons on which you base the very particular opinion that Saint John was a conspiracy theorist.

As I already told you there is no evidence that dead people come back to life, therefore, for me at least, the Gospel John is most probably a work of fantasy and fiction. Thus the section purporting to be the thinking of the Pharisees is not only unlikely anyway it is clearly a fictional embellishment.
Should I conclude that the writer of GJohn really did have verbatim access to the inner chambers of "Chief priests and the Pharisees meeting of the Sanhedrin" several decades later? Or is it rather more likely that he wrote a dramatized fictional account aimed at the audience of his day? :think:

:loser: The pharisees are jewish.

:bang: I never said otherwise, I was quite aware of what and who they were, I asked you why you singled that particular group out rather than blaming the Jews as a whole?
Clearly you simply credulously accept G.John's little conspiracy tale that you quoted me earlier, while I don't for the reasons I gave above.
My opinion is based on my own reading and evaluation of it, but you apparently have to believe it all in advance regardless, because that is what your church believes, and you being an obedient sheep... :sheep:

No "perhaps", please.
Saint John is the Apostle of Jesus Christ and an eye witness of the events of Christ' life.
Also, it wasn't the rise from death of Christ that didn't meet the pharisees approval, but something else. Something that got Christ crucified for. The kind of words that you either accept, either reject with atrocious fury and frustration. There was no middle way. Same goes with the stoning of Saint Stephen (the first martyr of the church). What is that got the pharisees so furious about Stephen's speech?

This is total gibberish, are you making it up on the hoof?
Clearly the context here in G.John's imo highly improbable tale was the supposed raising from the dead of Lazarus just before their meeting, not Jesus, have you even read it?

I think I'll simply skip the rest. :AMR:

 

[alwight]

Courtesy of Yeshua, we can live forever. The day after my Mother died, just a short time after my Father, I was given a precious gift, a visit from both of them. They were together and they looked like they were in their prime and they were very happy. Likewise, my Mother received a visit from her Mother a few months after she died. In that visit, my Grandmother told my Mom that she had seen Yeshua, that she was where He was and my Mom was not to mourn any longer because she was so happy. Now, I don't expect you to believe all this but the reason I'm telling you is because it was real. If it wasn't, I wouldn't be here. After everything that has happened in my life, I should be an atheist but I believe what my Mother saw and I believe what I saw. Faith is a very small and very powerful thing and it's the difference between eternal life and eternal death. You have a choice to put out your hand in faith or keep it to yourself. One small act of faith is all God is asking for and He won't disappoint you. He will take you on the walk of your life!

Clearly IMJ there is nothing here that I can rationally dispute with you or risk insulting you.
However my experience is that people who typically seem to have such experiences, they usually correspond remarkably closely with what they already believed anyway. lain:

 

[IMJerusha]

Clearly IMJ there is nothing here that I can rationally dispute with you or risk insulting you.
However my experience is that people who typically seem to have such experiences, they usually correspond remarkably closely with what they already believed anyway. lain:

Perhaps, as both my Mom and I were raised in the faith but you should know that really doesn't mean anything until the head knowledge becomes heart knowledge. For my Mother, that was long after she received her gift. Alwight, you can't insult me. You can say insulting things but that's the long and short of it. The fact that you don't want to speaks to the love of God. He's knocking on your door, all you have to do is open it. He'll do the rest.

 

[alwight]

Perhaps as both my Mom and I were raised in the faith but you should know that really doesn't mean anything until the head knowledge becomes heart knowledge. For my Mother, that was long after she received her gift. Alwight, you can't insult me. You can say insulting things but that's the long and short of it. The fact that you don't want to speaks to the love of God. He's knocking on your door, all you have to do is open it. He'll do the rest.

 

[alwight]

No "perhaps", please.
Saint John is the Apostle of Jesus Christ and an eye witness of the events of Christ' life.
Also, it wasn't the rise from death of Christ that didn't meet the pharisees approval, but something else. Something that got Christ crucified for. The kind of words that you either accept, either reject with atrocious fury and frustration. There was no middle way. Same goes with the stoning of Saint Stephen (the first martyr of the church). What is that got the pharisees so furious about Stephen's speech?

This is total gibberish, are you making it up on the hoof?
Clearly the context here in G.John's imo highly improbable tale was the supposed raising from the dead of Lazarus just before their meeting, not Jesus, have you even read it?

I think I'll simply skip the rest. :AMR:

Ah Simona (26) are you the troll I thought you were right at the start?
I seem to have caught you lying. :chuckle:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raising_of_Lazarus

Why not return and come clean, tell me who you really are? :loser: