The Religion of Blinding Bluster

[PureX]

Are you sure?

Look in the Bible, and find the story of the exodus, and the character in the story called "Moses". Yep, I'm sure. Moses is one of the characters in that story.

 

[PureX]

That is a completely vacuous claim.

It's heartbreaking that you have so fully lost sight of that spirit within yourself that you now think it doesn't exist in anyone.

 

[annabenedetti]

We are born with it. The ability to choose love, forgiveness, kindness, and generosity is always within us.

I'm reminded how rarely people read the Red Letter Bible words of Jesus.

 

[Right Divider]

It's heartbreaking that you have so fully lost sight of that spirit within yourself that you now think it doesn't exist in anyone.

It funny that you make up a "reality" that is not real and then expect everyone to bow their knee to you.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Look in the Bible, and find the story of the exodus, and the character in the story called "Moses". . . . Moses is one of the characters in that story.

You said, in response to the following:

They had the law. As they still do.

How about before Moses?

This:

Moses is a character in a story.

As if to imply that Moses didn't exist, but was just some fictional character. But that doesn't address my question. It's a non-answer, but raises another question:

1) Are you asserting that Moses did not exist? If so, what evidence do you have to support this claim?

2) When was the law given, if not given to Moses during his lifetime?

Yep, I'm sure.

I thought you said you didn't believe in absolutes?

 

[ok doser]

I'm reminded how rarely people read the Red Letter Bible words of Jesus.

Do you believe that the scriptural words in a red letter Bible which are attributed to Jesus represent the only wisdom He imparted during His 33 years walking among us?

Do you think that He came to abolish the law and the prophets?

What do you think He meant in Matthew 7:14?

 

[Right Divider]

I'm reminded how rarely people read the Red Letter Bible words of Jesus.

• The entire Bible are the "Words of Jesus"
• Jesus is God.
• God's Word is Jesus' Word.
• The "red words" were spoken at a time that Jesus said (in RED words) that He came only to the lost sheep of house of Israel.

 

[PureX]

You said, in response to the following:

As if to imply that Moses didn't exist, but was just some fictional character. But that doesn't address my question. It's a non-answer, but raises another question:

1) Are you asserting that Moses did not exist? If so, what evidence do you have to support this claim?

2) When was the law given, if not given to Moses during his lifetime?

I thought you said you didn't believe in absolutes?

I'm not going to argue with your Bible-based fantasies. There's nothing to be gained by it. I stated that Moses is a character in a story. Which is evident and obvious to anyone that bothers to look up the story. How you choose to interpret the story is your own business.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I'm not going to argue with your Bible-based fantasies. There's nothing to be gained by it.

Translation:

"I've been backed into a corner because I'm not willing to admit that I might be wrong on Moses not being a real person, so instead I'm going to belittle and mock my opponent by claiming his position is a fantasy."

I stated that Moses is a character in a story. Which is evident and obvious to anyone what bothers to look up the story. How you choose to interpret the story is your own business.

Was the story of Moses true or false?

If you say false, I demand to see your evidence.

If you say true, then why can't you just answer the question I asked, which is: "When was the law given?"

And regarding the following:

I'm sure

Doesn't that make you a hypocrite, since you have previously claimed to not believe in absolutes?

 

[PureX]

Was the story of Moses true or false?

If you say false, I demand to see your evidence.

If you say true, then why can't you just answer the question I asked, which is: "When was the law given?"

My answer is that your questions are irrelevant. It matters not at all to me which parts of the story (or of any story) are historically true and which parts are fictionalized embellishments. Because factuality is not why these stories are created, told, written, and saved for posterity. Like all stories of this kind, the Exodus story was created to represent a set of ideals that were important to the people in the culture that created it. And it has been saved because those ideals are still important to people, today. The factuality of the story is irrelevant to it's ability to present us with the ideal(s) it was intended to present.

All this nonsensical bluster about believing in it's factuality is just an attempt at forcing your 'inerrant Bible theory' into the conversation so you can use it to render yourself and your own interpretations of the story unquestionably righteous. And I don't care at all about how unquestionably righteous you need to pretend you are to yourself, or to me, or to others.

 

[ok doser]

My answer is that your questions are irrelevant. It matters not at all to me which parts of the story (or of any story) are historically true and which parts are fictionalized embellishments. Because factuality is not why these stories are created, told, written, and saved for posterity. Like all stories of this kind, the Exodus story was created to represent a set of ideals that were important to the people in the culture that created it. And it has been saved because those ideals are still important to people, today. The factuality of the story is irrelevant to it's ability to present us with the ideal(s) it was intended to present.

All this nonsensical bluster about believing in it's factuality is just an attempt at forcing your 'inerrant Bible theory' into the conversation so you can use it to render yourself and your own interpretations of the story unquestionably righteous. And I don't care at all about how unquestionably righteous you need to pretend you are to yourself, or to me, or to others.

And once again you dodge his question

 

[marke]

You cannot grasp that a fetus is not a baby. It becomes a baby at some point, but to you that's not comprehensible. Because right is right and wrong is wrong and you must be right. Nothing else matters.

It breathes. It feels pain. It moves. It cries. It sucks its thumb. It grows. It has a brain. It suffers horribly as it is being cut up for parts, but leftist barbarian savages stupidly think it is not human.

 

[ok doser]

... a fetus is not a baby.

Is this a baby?




Was it a baby 5 minutes ago?

Was it a baby an hour ago?

 

[Hoping]

If you need laws and rules to tell you how to love your fellow humans, you clearly don't know how to love your fllow humans. All those laws and rules are for those who do not recognize God's spirit within them. For those who do, obedience and righteousness are no longer an issue.

I and 1 Tim 1:9 agree..."Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,.."
Obedience to the laws of love are a natural quality/characteristic of those in Christ

He came to reveal to us that God's spirit dwells within us all. And that if we will set our own fears and selfishness aside, and become the embodiment of that spirit within, we will be healed and saved from ourselves, and can help to heal and save others. It was a revelation that anyone of any religion, or of no religion, could understand, and try for themselves. And it still is.

We are again in agreement...except for the "anyone of any...could understand" part.
But if you are correct on "that part", the only reason everyone won't accept it is because they don't want it.

There is no race to run except to set aside our fear and selfishness and let that divine spirit within us, guide us. And there is no prize except that we fulfill our true purpose in this world and meet God within each other. Sometimes it's difficult, especially when those around us are acting out of their own fear and selfishness like drowning men grasping at anything to stay afloat. But that's where faith comes in. We do what we can and trust that it will be enough in the end.

Too many "excepts" in that.
You provided the reasons to hold fast to our faith.
Setting aside the old and letting Christ guide us, and, fulfilling our purpose and meeting God are the "race".
But don't think for a second that God is in "everyone".

If they cannot see the love within themselves, perhaps they can see it within us, by how we treat them.

Exactly !

Love is a way of being, not a dogma. Without it we are just dumb animals obeying the needs and the whims of our bodies. To become human, we have to rise above that, and realize that love transcends materialism.

To become "better" humans we need to be reborn.
The new creature has transcended materialism.

 

[Hoping]

Love is far more than not lying, cheating or killing. And it certainly is not about being "right".

You are "right".
Love is indeed far more than just having a good conscience towards God.
But doesn't that go hand-in-hand with being "right"?
When is it ever "wrong" to love, or show love?

Are you afraid of being "right" on certain things?

 

[PureX]

It breathes. It feels pain. It moves. It cries. It sucks its thumb. It grows. It has a brain. It suffers horribly as it is being cut up for parts, but leftist barbarian savages stupidly think it is not human.

It doesn't breathe until it's forced to. It doesn't feel pain until it has a sufficiently developed nervous system and brain to interpret the nerve signals as 'pain'. And we don't actually know when these occur fully enough to be considered this 'horrible suffering' that you are ascribing to a fetus of any stage of development. The truth is that you don't actually know at what point this is so, and neither does anyone else. We do know that it becomes very likely to be so at some point before the child is born. And we do know that we do not want to inflict that kind of suffering on any unborn babies.

But the fact of the matter is that no matter how certain you are that you are right, you don't really know any more about what a fetus thinks or feels at any particular stage of development than anyone else. Which is why most people believe that it is the mother's responsibility to decide the fate of the fetus UP TO A CERTAIN POINT. That point being when we can be reasonably sure that the fetus has sufficiently developed to be considered a "child" even while still in the womb.

The courts decided years ago that point should be 22-24 weeks, based on that being the amount of gestation required for a child to survive outside the womb if it had to. And although I understand their reasoning: that this is when the fetus becomes (or can become) an "autonomous person", I believe that to be too far along in the process of development to reasonably avoid the kind of suffering that you refer to. (Keep in mind, however, that a fetus can be totally anesthetized and thereby feel nothing at all.) I think the cut-off should be sooner. But in those early stages, I do think that it must logically be the mother that has the right to make the decision on whether or not to continue with a pregnancy. It's her body, and it's her "sin" if it is a sin to commit. Not yours, and not mine.

 

[Right Divider]

It's her body, ...

NO, it's NOT!

The BABY has its OWN body.

 

[Hoping]

It doesn't breathe until it's forced to. It doesn't feel pain until it has a sufficiently developed nervous system and brain to interpret the nerve signals as 'pain'. And we don't actually know when these occur fully enough to be considered this 'horrible suffering' that you are ascribing to a fetus of any stage of development. The truth is that you don't actually know at what point this is so, and neither does anyone else. We do know that it becomes very likely to be so at some point before the child is born. And we do know that we do not want to inflict that kind of suffering on any unborn babies.

But the fact of the matter is that no matter how certain you are that you are right, you don't really know any more about what a fetus thinks or feels at any particular stage of development than anyone else. Which is why most people believe that it is the mother's responsibility to decide the fate of the fetus UP TO A CERTAIN POINT. That point being when we can be reasonably sure that the fetus has sufficiently developed to be considered a "child" even while still in the womb.

The courts decided years ago that point should be 22-24 weeks, based on that being the amount of gestation required for a child to survive outside the womb if it had to. And although I understand their reasoning: that this is when the fetus becomes (or can become) an "autonomous person", I believe that to be too far along in the process of development to reasonably avoid the kind of suffering that you refer to. (Keep in mind, however, that a fetus can be totally anesthetized and thereby feel nothing at all.) I think the cut-off should be sooner. But in those early stages, I do think that it must logically be the mother that has the right to make the decision on whether or not to continue with a pregnancy. It's her body, and it's her "sin" if it is a sin to commit. Not yours, and not mine.

Where is your love, for the baby?

 

[PureX]

You are "right".
Love is indeed far more than just having a good conscience towards God.
But doesn't that go hand-in-hand with being "right"?
When is it ever "wrong" to love, or show love?

Are you afraid of being "right" on certain things?

I understand that I can and will be wrong about a great many things in life. It's inevitable, as I am neither omniscient nor am I trying to embody perfection. I don't presume to ever possess either of these. They are conditions belonging to a realm far beyond the one I inhabit.

So all I can do is the best I can given the many flaws and limitations that I have. It's never 'wrong' to love, but HOW best to love someone can be very complicated and confusing. And because it is so complicated and confusing, I (we) are bound to screw it up even with the best of intentions. Often without ever even knowing that we have screwed up. Which is why we ALL need forgiveness. And why we all need to forgive each other, often. Even when we or others aren't even aware of needing it.

All this focus on righteousness is just a waste of time in the service of ego. None of us are ever going to be righteous. We are all going to screw up even with the best of intentions, and we are all in need of forgiveness as a result. Whether we even realize it or not. And in the meantime, to love God, and to love one another is all the same activity. It's all the same love. So that is where we should try to keep our focus. Not on delusions of divine omniscience or phony self-righteousness that we are never going to possess.

Just love each other as best we can, and forgive each other when we fail at it. And trust (in faith) that this will be good enough to get us all to the 'promised land', someday.

 

[PureX]

NO, it's NOT!

The BABY has its OWN body.

A human being is not defined simply by having a body.