Thou Shalt Not Take The Name Of The Lord In Vain

[Paper Hearts]

Fair enough. It's just something you feel, then? Well, I don't feel any of that. Although, it's quite possible everything you say may be true. And frankly, I think your explanation is more interesting and believable than what the Bible says...although that doesn't mean that the Bible isn't true, either. And again. for all we really know, even Osama Bin Ladin's interpretaion has a chance for being correct...even if it is very politically wrong, using common and established ideas. Well, the God most Christian's believe in isn't politically correct by that same comparison, either.

[phee]

Okay, I'm really dumb. I have no idea what 'imo' means.

Anyway, It is possible that God, or possibly several gods live in me. It's probably more possible that way or he living in the sky, than he or they living in a alternate dimension. At least we can see ourselves and the sky. It's just more anylitical, whatever that's worth. But I still just don't believe any of it. I don't know how anyone gets to that point.

Getting to that point.

Fear, the need to think that there is more then what is in front of us, the desire to feel looked after, a way to explain the unexplainable.

Or if I were to be a bit more cruel... To avoid thinking, to simply believe is usually easier then to think about things.... One could read books and study and try to understand, or they could just nod their heads when someone says: "That's the way it is" Most people are just desperate and unhappy enough to not their heads IMO

[Paper Hearts]

Getting to that point.

Fear, the need to think that there is more then what is in front of us, the desire to feel looked after, a way to explain the unexplainable.

Or if I were to be a bit more cruel... To avoid thinking, to simply believe is usually easier then to think about things.... One could read books and study and try to understand, or they could just nod their heads when someone says: "That's the way it is" Most people are just desperate and unhappy enough to not their heads IMO

I'm not comforatble with that either, honestly. And I'm hopeless and pathetic for it, I realize it. But I'm not even comfortable believing what i feel about the origin of existance...because I don't see the point in believing in something that I really don't know. What merit can it possibly have with any god to have an ocean of followers who accept things that they really have no idea about? It's like the books are saying that one must simply trust and that means that you're on God's team or something. Trust who? Where?

And by the way, I think god is a woman, probably.

[torn asunder]

see, there is this separation again - to me, "god" isn't a separate entity who requires fealty, but is the source of all energy which encompasses the entire universe. "god" would be the rocks, the trees, the black holes, the supernovas, the comets, etc... all of the universe vibrates at certain frequencies - it's almost like music. that vibrational energy, to me, is "god". (i call it "source")

as god pertains to sentience, i liken it to cable television - each sentient creature is a cable box and has a certain "subscription" which they can tune in to. some lower forms (animals, insects, etc) only have a basic subscription. people have "silver", "gold", or "platinum" subscriptions, depending on their "spirituality" or level of "enlightenment". jesus would have been something like "director of programming" as he could modify people's subscription - show them channels they never saw before. but overall, the original source, the cable feed, i would call god.

have you ever just sat & watched thoughts run through your head? wuite often, there's no rhyme nor reaosn to them, they just flit across your screen. it's up to you to decide which "program" you want to watch. this is where i feel personal responsibility comes into play. people can choose to watch the basic channels with little effort, but to reach the higher subscriptions, they need to focus their attention more, which is where things like meditation or prayer come into play, and why most religions/philosophies condone these in some way. most people don't see the higher programming, because it's just easier to sit & watch what's already on - it costs too much to get the rest of them, so they don't bother.

wow... umm... i hope this analogy works - i kind of ran with it. sorry...

[Steven]

been gopne all afternoon and just now cathcing up on what IMO means...

um, quickly.....

Troy I get where your coming from on the whole issue of "the Boss" telling you what to do and you jump and how high and all of that but honestly can you picture me being this way? Or DO you picture me being this way? I'm curious. I certainly dont see myself this way, I dont live that way and I dont act that way. (And I might add that I seem to taste just a wee bit of former JW rancor there.....which is understandable)

And Phee - I also get what yoru saying, but do you picture me as a man who lives by way of fear based decisions? And do you consider me to be a non-thinking somebody please tell me what to beleive kinda guy????

And finnaly to Paper hearts:

1st - I like your honesty about even your own position, very respectable.

2nd - although I have no problem saying that I am not "expert" on god, I DO however feel like I DO have a clue as to who he is and what he wants of me, and that's where the opinions differ, or seem to differ, although we disagree I'm actually NOT flailing about like a blind man. I say this because you ask reasonable questions yet they are not founded in the situations of all beleivers. Its sort of like asking me about my black man expereinces when in reality I'm latin, a brown man. It's "sorta" the same but not really when you get down to it.

[phee]

And Phee - I also get what yoru saying, but do you picture me as a man who lives by way of fear based decisions? And do you consider me to be a non-thinking somebody please tell me what to beleive kinda guy????

As usual my friend you are the exception

[Steven]

I dont want to be the exception Brutha...I want to be the standard!!!!

[BrassFusion]

see, there is this separation again - to me, "god" isn't a separate entity who requires fealty, but is the source of all energy which encompasses the entire universe. "god" would be the rocks, the trees, the black holes, the supernovas, the comets, etc... all of the universe vibrates at certain frequencies - it's almost like music. that vibrational energy, to me, is "god". (i call it "source")

as god pertains to sentience, i liken it to cable television - each sentient creature is a cable box and has a certain "subscription" which they can tune in to. some lower forms (animals, insects, etc) only have a basic subscription. people have "silver", "gold", or "platinum" subscriptions, depending on their "spirituality" or level of "enlightenment". jesus would have been something like "director of programming" as he could modify people's subscription - show them channels they never saw before. but overall, the original source, the cable feed, i would call god.

have you ever just sat & watched thoughts run through your head? wuite often, there's no rhyme nor reaosn to them, they just flit across your screen. it's up to you to decide which "program" you want to watch. this is where i feel personal responsibility comes into play. people can choose to watch the basic channels with little effort, but to reach the higher subscriptions, they need to focus their attention more, which is where things like meditation or prayer come into play, and why most religions/philosophies condone these in some way. most people don't see the higher programming, because it's just easier to sit & watch what's already on - it costs too much to get the rest of them, so they don't bother.

wow... umm... i hope this analogy works - i kind of ran with it. sorry...

So I never actually got around to the "cable subscription" metaphor, but a few years ago I did a lot of thinking and came to the conclusion that if there's ANY supernatural influence in the universe, it's more or less organized like you've stated. I couldn't force myself to believe in heaven or hell, or one patriarchal god figure.

But it still seems that the simplest solution is that there's no supernatural influence, so until I have more information, that's what I'll credit.

[Troy Spiral (13)]

Doesn't Christ say basically the same thing though? Doesn't he say something like you should give up everything you have on Earth and that it's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to pass into heaven? Some people wil argue over in what context he was speaking when he said that, but if some one is into taking things in the Bible as litteral...I suppose that we should start building really big needles. Actually, I'm sure I saw that in a comedy sketch, maybe Kids In The Hall.

Somehow, the christ that i've read about in the gospels (and i've actually read them, not just saying i've read them) Is not the same guy that would allow chaplins in the army and have a pope that backs one political regime over another. But, in practice , your average joe christian does what the clergy tells them, not what is actually written in the word.

The bible does talk about being involved in violence, but , the "new testament" that is.... Christs updating of the law of the jews... is , as far as i can tell a HARDCORE pacifist non-materlialst , apolitical philosophy. But, in actual effect, most of your well known clergy don't preach this. So what the actual core teachings are, from a "political" standpoint doesn't effect your average christian. (and i'm not referencing steven)

Christ would have never backed the crusades or the iquisition for example. But that doesn't matter, the majority of folk get their info from the clergy, not direct from the bible. (in part because much of it is almost riddle-like and is a hard read, and historically people couldn't even read to even attempt to interpret it)

In a mild way i think jesus did , indirectly allow for some mild worldly good attainment in a more accepting way than Buddha would have. Not to say that one or the other viewpoint is more correct than the other. Just giving an example of how christianity jives, at least somewhat more with captialism than buddhism would.

In buddhism, its actively "preached" that you need to just accept things and not strive after worldly goods and get involved in wars and such, by the "clergy". So your average buddhist, who may never have even set eyes on the words of Gutama Siddhartha... still will be following the pacifist, non-materliastic worldview is the standard among buddhists. Thus, it doesn't work well with capitalism.

Thats one of the reasons that all buddhist heavy countries are dirt poor and historically get owned constantly.

been gopne all afternoon and just now cathcing up on what IMO means...

um, quickly.....

Troy I get where your coming from on the whole issue of "the Boss" telling you what to do and you jump and how high and all of that but honestly can you picture me being this way? Or DO you picture me being this way? I'm curious. I certainly dont see myself this way, I dont live that way and I dont act that way. (And I might add that I seem to taste just a wee bit of former JW rancor there.....which is understandable)

Actually i'm not sure steve. I mean if i really did fully believe in the christian god as described by jesus. Pretty much yeah, I'd have to do what god says, and i wouldn't spend a whole lot of time questioning the motives behind it.

If someone/thing was omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent... which is to say... The Ultimate. And, i believed in him/it , i wouldn't have the balls to dare question his motives. Yes sir, how high sir would be my immediate response. Anything else would be... fairly disrepsectful i think. If i have faith that he knows best... then thats it, he knows best no reason for me to question him/it. Sure i might have freewill, but i'd be a dumbass i think to question the motives of such an awe-inspiring , perfect presence.

About the only reason i could see to "question" Him would be so that i could help consul the less faithful. Not that i'd REALLY question him, i'd just try to come up with responses to what might be likely questions from the less informed.

But you, personally, i'm not sure were your at with that. I wasn't referencing anyone in particular.

I just feel that if i really, honesty fully bought into the teachings of Jesus... it would be game over. Meaning, i'm done with the whole "questioning of existence". If i had faith in the christian god, i'd have all the answers i need. I'd just get to work. I wouldn't spend time trying to second guess the boss.

Again i don't nessisarly buy into any of the above. Its just my observation of how , if i did buy into such things full, i think i'd have to act.

Random off topic suggestion: If anyone is thinking about reading parts of the bible (reading the whole thing would take some hardcore dedication) read Mark. Mark is the most comprehensive of the gospels, is the easiest read, and covers all the main points that the others do more than any other single book.

I don't mean this nessisarly from a "religious" standpoint. I just think a book as influential as the bible, at least is a worthwhile endeavor to study a bit. Even from a totally atheist perspective.

[Troy Spiral (13)]

And to reference some of the "nature of god" comments above.

If we are talking about a single, "one" god at least somewhat similar to the christan god concept.

I think yeah, if you really spend some hardcore time thinking about what omniscient (all knowing) , omnipresent (everywhere), and omnipotent (all powerful) entity would be.... it wouldn't , i don't really think be a "personality" in the way we think of such things. Its just described that way to make it easier for your average layperson to understand "him".

Something that all-encompassing would be , everywhere. The trees, the stars, your DNA, other dimensions, the ocean... everywhere and would be gender irrelevant.

[Paper Hearts]

So..then prayer is redundant. Well, wouldn't it be redundant, if God is Omniscent? And repentance. And the church. Because God already knows.

There's sort of a disconnect in the gospels and in the very words of Christ, between this concept of an 'all knowing, all seeing' God, because the Bible teaches that one should pray, should repent, should go to church. In addition, why in the bible is Heaven mentioned, at all, and God nesting on his thrown there, behind pearly gates with angels and trumpets; I'm sure you see what I'm getting at. Omnipresent is difficult to apply to God, as well.

[Paper Hearts]

Also, if God knew already how this utopia experiment called Earth would end, then why is 'he' so pissed that it's all gone wrong for him? I don't see an omnipotence in that, nor a omiscience.

Further, why is Satan associated with worldlyiness?

And why is God reffered to as "the father", if God is everything--why not "the parent"?

[Paper Hearts]

I think the Bible clearly teaches that God is not perfect. He's jealous. He has a considerable amount of power, yes, but he's not able to know everything, and the Bibile also conveys that God is not in the Earth, not everywhere, but actually in Heaven...where ever that is.

And 'is and was and always shall be' is a tough pill to swallow. Nobody understands that. It's just something a Christian is meant to accept. However, to me, when I'm looking for an explanation for existance, I'm doing just that. I don't just stop short of that and fall to my knees in worship.

There are a number of things beyond those things I've mentioned that make me curious about the Christian faith. The age of man given in the Bible, for instance, is a shorter time than what we now know other religions such as Hindi have existed for, based on physical evidence. That makes me wonder, even as som one who was raised in Catholisism.

[Paper Hearts]

Not that I discount the possibility, all together...it's just very unlikely to me.

[Steven]

Fast replies (im at work):

troy - great posts.

consider (or re-consider) the prophets and God and their relationships. Also consider patriarchs like David, Moses, Elijah, Abraham, Peter, Thomas, etc.......did any of them question anything? Whn you look into it - you actually see ALOT of questioning and wrestling with the will of god versus the will and understanding of man, that relational struggle is very consistent throughout both old and new testament.

Now if God is such a control freak - why would he allow that in his written word? Why show so many examples of those who walked with him closely and yet did not always relinquish their will, and yet remained in his favor? Couldent people today use that as an escape clause?

I think its simply because God recognizes the basic humanity and will for self worship in all of us. He works "with' it as opposed to Lording over it.

Side Note: Christ the pasicifist - also told the roman soldiers to do their work well and not to bitch about their wages. He never told them to lay down their arms. Also consider the example of Peter who drew his sword and cut off the ear of one of Christ's kidnappers from the Mob. This Peter had been with Christ for years now. Why did he have a sword? Why do we never see Christ admonishing Peter not to carry arms? His admonishment of Peter is not till the very end in Gethsemene....he addresses it there - with a lifestyle/judgment warning, and so clearly Peter had free will all the while.

For me to see evidence of truth and order - I look as much at the dynamics of biblical relationships as much as I look at events and commandments. There is a great deal to learn there - and it helps with the arguments concerning intepretation. At least to me it does.

Paper:-

Prayer is for the seeker. It brings him or her into an appropriatly receptive and humble position before the all knowing. Thereis a certain posture that ALL people need to take with one another in certain situations, we adjust as needed, this is normal. Prayer - is a call to a certain mindset and posture. has nothign to do with omnipotence and omniscience - has to so with US.

Forgiveness is also for us - it allows for an appropriate relational dynamic. People need (except for game of Chance) to both forgive and be forgiven amongst one another - it bridges the gap and re-connects the two parties. This same human condition is utilized here. Bridiging the gap between the chasm of God and Man.

The Chruch is a vehicle - that is all. We, the body of beleivers, are the church. And the real "Chruch" if you will started in small groups of banded beleivers in homes. It moved away and outside of the Temple. It is simply a place for reverance and community - it again - is for the beleiver. You know you can watch a football Game on TV or actually go to the game and sit in the stands. One expereince is stronger in stimulus than the other.

God is referred to as the Father as opposed to the Parent because he's not politically correct and the terminology of the day also didi not concern itself with this sort of gender appropriateness. It is what it is - and God apparently used masculine descriptives of himself. and remember too that "Abba" as Christ used it - is intentional in that it refers to intimacy. Abba translates into soemthign like "Daddy" I know you love that.

And Lucifer is ascribed to worldliness because Lucifer wanted his own kingdom and world apart from and above that of YHWH's and so he got one. Those who worship YHWH accept a subordinate position under his headship. Those who do not - align themselves with Lucifer's philosphy of self rule. That philosphy is ascribed to "the world". (Louie's world).

[Troy Spiral (13)]

Hah.. damn way to much for me to respond to at the moment, ill just comment on a few things:

So..then prayer is redundant. Well, wouldn't it be redundant, if God is Omniscent? And repentance. And the church. Because God already knows.

Yeah this is one of my key "stumbling blocks".

Also, if God knew already how this utopia experiment called Earth would end, then why is 'he' so pissed that it's all gone wrong for him? I don't see an omnipotence in that, nor a omiscience.

Further, why is Satan associated with worldlyiness?

And why is God reffered to as "the father", if God is everything--why not "the parent"?

God "the father" just an expression like any expression used to describe such things. Makes it easier for us to grasp. Could argue what the proper term for god is ad infinitum.

Going along with the "unfathomable entity" concept... he wouldnt have the kind of emotions we have i dont think. Morality is irrelevant for god. Morality actually was irrelvant in a sense for mankind up until the whole adam and eve fuck up. Right after that "morality" as we know it hit earth. Then its been suck-all ever since. (ok sorry being a bit of a wise ass there)

God "He" would be , everything basicly. He "owns" the concepts we try to play with. We really have no chance of winning an argument with the god of the christian bible or even scratching his perfection. (that is if god does exist as described by scrpiture) Up, down, left, right, good, bad,future,past. Totally outside of anything we could measure god by. He IS all that stuff, whatever "he" does is the way it is. "Jealousy" for instance.. wouldnt even really be something that is relevant. He owns everything anyway in a sense.

Satan, is viewed as worldly, in that god (another hard one to grasp) is allowing him to control the earth for the moment to "test" us. (again another stumbling block for me)

Ok i gotta shut up, i could talk about this for years. I should go back to school and get a phd in philosophy or something. Really facinating shit.

[Paper Hearts]

For Steven~

I can agree with that; that the God Christians believe in is not demonstrated through the numerous accounts in the Bible, as a perfect being. -God wasn't able to foresee what the nature of man would be, before creation; God made a mistake in a sense...and even though it was God who created man, so imperfectly, God still holds man accountable. God is also jealous, by his own account and seemingly wrathful. And through all this, God is also condescending (and not in Jane Austen’s sense of 'condescending'). He’s condescending even with his ackowledgment and admittance that man was made in his own image. He's quite imperfect in his thrown in Heaven, surrounded by angels, where he cannot stand to briefly gaze upon his Earth, let alone exist in it (according to one of the Bible’s examples).

Meanwhile, Omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence are applied to the nature of God by his profits; nevertheless, one of those profits who uses such expressions (by whatever language or variation) is indeed Christ. But Christianity hinges on Christ. Without Christ, Christians would truly be "Hebrews". So Christ, must be point of note, here-

Jesus Christ claims that he is the son of God. He is, in a meaning, God's messenger, and made for that express purpose. There are two excuses for the contradictions in Christ's delineations of God's character:

Christ is either making rough comparisons of God (which indicates Christ's own true inaccuracies and fallibility as a being), Or Christ is truly not the son of God, perhaps not even a "standard-issue" profit and perhaps "God" is not even real.

For the sake of the matter, if we only allow for first potential mentioned, one must also make the confession that man has no true understanding of God. For who can understand one who is, above all else, so obscure in their manner of speaking, as Christ so apparently is (again, Christ is noted for his foremost importance to Christianity, rather than simply citing the words of Peter the apostle or those of the reverend Jerry Falwell, here). With one's admission of ignorance, one must also realize that one has no ability to discern which words in the Bible are exaggerations or which lettering are factual. Therefore, one only suspects that the Bible's, at best, vague history of existence, is correct, farther than one never being capable of scientifically proving to one's self that the gospel is right.

Faith and knowledge are near antonyms. And, I do liken it to wrong to believe in creed which has no intellectual support. I’m just not prepared for that.

[phee]

For Steven~

I can agree with that; that the God Christians believe in is not demonstrated through the numerous accounts in the Bible, as a perfect being. -God wasn't able to foresee what the nature of man would be, before creation; God made a mistake in a sense...and even though it was God who created man, so imperfectly, God still holds man accountable. God is also jealous, by his own account and seemingly wrathful. And through all this, God is also condescending (and not in Jane Austen’s sense of 'condescending'). He’s condescending even with his ackowledgment and admittance that man was made in his own image. He's quite imperfect in his thrown in Heaven, surrounded by angels, where he cannot stand to briefly gaze upon his Earth, let alone exist in it (according to one of the Bible’s examples).

Meanwhile, Omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence are applied to the nature of God by his profits; nevertheless, one of those profits who uses such expressions (by whatever language or variation) is indeed Christ. But Christianity hinges on Christ. Without Christ, Christians would truly be "Hebrews". So Christ, must be point of note, here-

Jesus Christ claims that he is the son of God. He is, in a meaning, God's messenger, and made for that express purpose. There are two excuses for the contradictions in Christ's delineations of God's character:

Christ is either making rough comparisons of God (which indicates Christ's own true inaccuracies and fallibility as a being), Or Christ is truly not the son of God, perhaps not even a "standard-issue" profit and perhaps "God" is not even real.

For the sake of the matter, if we only allow for first potential mentioned, one must also make the confession that man has no true understanding of God. For who can understand one who is, above all else, so obscure in their manner of speaking, as Christ so apparently is (again, Christ is noted for his foremost importance to Christianity, rather than simply citing the words of Peter the apostle or those of the reverend Jerry Falwell, here). With one's admission of ignorance, one must also realize that one has no ability to discern which words in the Bible are exaggerations or which lettering are factual. Therefore, one only suspects that the Bible's, at best, vague history of existence is correct, farther than one never being capable of scientifically proving to one's self that the the gospel is right.

Faith and knowledge are near antonyms. And, I do liken it to wrong to believe in creed which has no intellectual support. I’m just not prepared for that.

What a post!!!

I really want to comment.... but I am at work.... and usually.... I should do work while there....

[Paper Hearts]

What a post!!!

I really want to comment.... but I am at work.... and usually.... I should do work while there....

If one can't trust what the Bible quotes Jesus as having said, then how can one trust the Bible's descriptions of Christ's actions, either? And if Christianity is a following of the ways and words of Christ, wouldn't this all really make Christianity another religion founded on an immense nothingness? Is that what you were about to say?

Quit absconding all my best points and get back to work you scoundrel!

[phee]

If one can't trust what the Bible quotes Jesus as having said, then how can one trust the Bible's descriptions of Christ's actions, either? And if Christianity is a following of the ways and words of Christ, wouldn't this all really make Christianity another religion founded on an immense nothingness? Is that what you were about to say?

Quit absconding all my best points and get back to work you scoundrel!

Ask steven and look at some earlier threads.... you and I are on the same page

[Paper Hearts]

I know Phee. I'm just being a bastard.

[Steven]

If one can't trust what the Bible quotes Jesus as having said, then how can one trust the Bible's descriptions of Christ's actions, either? And if Christianity is a following of the ways and words of Christ, wouldn't this all really make Christianity another religion founded on an immense nothingness? Is that what you were about to say?

Quit absconding all my best points and get back to work you scoundrel!

man you boys are gonna get me busted at work....

quickly now:

If one cant trust the biblical quotes then one is undesrstandably without a foundation in this regard. I DO trust the biblical text. I also find interesting what other historians beleive about christ - there seems to me to be some pretty good consistency, if you take out the diety portion of the figurehead.

Add to this - the descriptions of others imapcted by him - such as Saul of Tarsus who was a brillian, tbrilliant dynamic man. SOMETHING profound changed his life - I see that too as a form of evidence. Same goes for the lives of the Apostles and the historical evidence of Christianity (known as "the way" at that point) surviving a horrendous early period of persecution. Why did it get recognized as a worthy advasary needing persecution at its early stages? What did others see in it? Again to me I recognize that as a "form' of eveidence that somethign unique and powerful was happening.

and yes Christianity is foudned on Christ as the centerpeice but again - it is foudned on a deified Christ as the centerpeice - if you remove that beleif then you remove the potency of Chrisitianity. I beleive in it - in Christ's deity, therefore the faith i carry has considerable power to it. But if you cannot swallow the deity of Christ - then it's as you say - all for nothing. I have no problem with that.

[Steven]

For Steven~

I can agree with that; that the God Christians believe in is not demonstrated through the numerous accounts in the Bible, as a perfect being. -God wasn't able to foresee what the nature of man would be, before creation; God made a mistake in a sense...and even though it was God who created man, so imperfectly, God still holds man accountable. God is also jealous, by his own account and seemingly wrathful. And through all this, God is also condescending (and not in Jane Austen’s sense of 'condescending'). He’s condescending even with his ackowledgment and admittance that man was made in his own image. He's quite imperfect in his thrown in Heaven, surrounded by angels, where he cannot stand to briefly gaze upon his Earth, let alone exist in it (according to one of the Bible’s examples).

Meanwhile, Omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence are applied to the nature of God by his profits; nevertheless, one of those profits who uses such expressions (by whatever language or variation) is indeed Christ. But Christianity hinges on Christ. Without Christ, Christians would truly be "Hebrews". So Christ, must be point of note, here-

Jesus Christ claims that he is the son of God. He is, in a meaning, God's messenger, and made for that express purpose. There are two excuses for the contradictions in Christ's delineations of God's character:

Christ is either making rough comparisons of God (which indicates Christ's own true inaccuracies and fallibility as a being), Or Christ is truly not the son of God, perhaps not even a "standard-issue" profit and perhaps "God" is not even real.

For the sake of the matter, if we only allow for first potential mentioned, one must also make the confession that man has no true understanding of God. For who can understand one who is, above all else, so obscure in their manner of speaking, as Christ so apparently is (again, Christ is noted for his foremost importance to Christianity, rather than simply citing the words of Peter the apostle or those of the reverend Jerry Falwell, here). With one's admission of ignorance, one must also realize that one has no ability to discern which words in the Bible are exaggerations or which lettering are factual. Therefore, one only suspects that the Bible's, at best, vague history of existence, is correct, farther than one never being capable of scientifically proving to one's self that the gospel is right.

Faith and knowledge are near antonyms. And, I do liken it to wrong to believe in creed which has no intellectual support. I’m just not prepared for that.

I dont see the contradiction your talking about. Maybe you can help me (honestly) with some difinitive referance biblical points so I can feel where yrou at.

Remember too that Christ also called himself the Son of Man - a being that he also acknowledged as imperfect and fallible. ANd remember again that in the Hebrew Culture "the son of" equates to exactly thgat - equality. thats why they accused him of blasphemy in calling himself the son of God. Also remember that Christ claimed to (charges levied against him in court) have the authority to forgive sins and stated this publically - again pointing to his own beleif at least - that he was on par with The Father. He was a mystery then and a mystery now - and I belevie this was intentional. One final note to consider was the overall "style" of his ministry - he completely disregarded the former religiosity and power structure of the Sanhedrin and instead took the people directly to God's feet with himself as the vehicle. In the Hebrew world - that approach was phenominal and far too personal and intimite with YHWH. that alone - points toward his own beleif that he "knew" God to a much greater degree than the other prophets. His comparisopns to God were never rough but iunstead were blantent and divisive. I see a certain genius to that apporach. But if overall he was so wrong or jsut another man then I truly doubt we'd be discussing him online right now.

[Steven]

For Steven~

Faith and knowledge are near antonyms. And, I do liken it to wrong to believe in creed which has no intellectual support. I’m just not prepared for that.

this will ultimately depepnd upon what you value.

I personally give a great deal of thought (intellect) to the things I beleive.

And I beleive that I have a measurable degree of knowledge in that which I place my faith in.

I never do anything, for nothing's sake.

And I never jsut follow what's been given me, i always look around for something more, something often overlooked, so that I can be sure that my faith is exaclty that - mine.

and it is. And that's some bad ass Ju Ju.

[phee]

I dont see the contradiction your talking about. Maybe you can help me (honestly) with some difinitive referance biblical points so I can feel where yrou at.

Remember too that Christ also called himself the Son of Man - a being that he also acknowledged as imperfect and fallible. ANd remember again that in the Hebrew Culture "the son of" equates to exactly thgat - equality. thats why they accused him of blasphemy in calling himself the son of God. Also remember that Christ claimed to (charges levied against him in court) have the authority to forgive sins and stated this publically - again pointing to his own beleif at least - that he was on par with The Father. He was a mystery then and a mystery now - and I belevie this was intentional. One final note to consider was the overall "style" of his ministry - he completely disregarded the former religiosity and power structure of the Sanhedrin and instead took the people directly to God's feet with himself as the vehicle. In the Hebrew world - that approach was phenominal and far too personal and intimite with YHWH. that alone - points toward his own beleif that he "knew" God to a much greater degree than the other prophets. His comparisopns to God were never rough but iunstead were blantent and divisive. I see a certain genius to that apporach. But if overall he was so wrong or jsut another man then I truly doubt we'd be discussing him online right now.

We don't know what Christ said....