Nathan_Jr

Like beating your slave to within an inch of her life is righteous, as long as that inch carries her life through day two post beating. Let her die from her wounds on day five.

What I'm saying is what I've said many times: The one claiming to speak for God is surely the one who does not.

There is wisdom in the Bible, for sure. There are ideas worth contemplating, meditating on. There are beautiful turns of phrase, poetry. But It's not the only contemplative book of wisdom, ancient or modern, worth reading.

All I know is that he was sent by God. How do I know this? Paul himself says so of himself. He said it, that settles it, I believe it.

Yeah, well, mogadishu rafa calamari peshwari naan. I would that you all SIT as much as I do. He said Jesus sits at the right hand of God. God is sitting next to his seated son, Jesus. Neither needs to stop working at any time. They can work while sitting. Neither requires rest because neither gets tired, probably because they are sitting. Though God and Christ are absent, take comfort in knowing that they are sitting down

I look forward to Raf's answer, but I just want to say, what if you're right? Consider letting go of this sinister, manipulative dilemma. This is possible: The freedom, the liberty, to look clearly at anything, unencumbered by forgone conclusions and beleefs.

You might read WordWolf’s excellent treatment of Genesis 1 in the Doctrinal forum. I may have misunderstood him or didn’t read it carefully the first time, but my takeaway is that evolution is not incompatible with creationism.

I know she doesn’t believe in hell. Not sure what she thinks about heaven other than she doesn’t see it as a geographical destination. I know she believes life is eternal and death is powerless and Christ Jesus proved it. She doesn’t feel obligated to witness. Maybe she sees her life as a witness. I don't think she believes she can make anyone see what she sees. Again, she sees it as a personal journey for each and everyone. But she’s a universalist, so she believes everyone, eventually, will come to the truth. I thought Matthew was Old Testament written TO the Jews, according to TWI. How could the Great Commission apply to anyone other than the eleven disciples, who were dirty Judeans, according to TWI? There’s probably a glove for that.

I missed this part. No. I don’t think she is striving to believe anything. I don’t think she sees God as being displeased. Again, for her, it goes back to Genesis chapter 1 as foundational. God saw everything that he had made. And it was very good.

She's not at all burdened by sin. Church? Not really. I'm sure she would be considered a heretic or something like that by some here. She doesn't talk about her faith unless asked, even then, sparingly. She doesn't evangelize. She doesn't talk about or judge others’ religious beliefs, even when she disagrees. She sees it all as very personal and private. She has two best friends since childhood. She talks to them daily. Amazing love and loyalty among them. One is Methodist, the other Episcopalian.

My mother is a devout Christian. She walks with tremendous peace, compassion, grace and power. I've witnessed her receive countless healings and revelations. She is not a proseltizer/evangelizer. She is not a fundamentalist inerrantist. She knows God isn't in the publishing business and didn't write the books of the Bible. Genesis chapter one is foundational to her theology/philosophy. Chapter 2 on, not so much.

Horrendous. Yes, indeed. I'm not a Jew. I'm not subject the wrath of the Jewish god. (Nor are they.) Nor will I be manipulated by a Pharisee like Paul that simply beleeeving what he says will save me from the horrendous acts of the god of Abram.

Do you likewise think that serpent is perfect? Or when and how is it that fallen creature excluded? And if everything is perfect... why do you suppose God gave instructions to the man to not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil? Did evil already exist at the time of this instruction... or didn't it? Can this be explained?"and that we needed a savior" Saved from what? "Do you likewise think that serpent is perfect? Or when and how is it that fallen creature excluded? And if everything is perfect... why do you suppose God gave instructions to the man to not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil? Did evil already exist at the time of this instruction... or didn't it? Can this be explained?" Good questions, but presumptive. It's a different author, a different god, a different creation myth. In the first creation story, chapter one, El saw that ALL he made was very good - ALL without exception or distinction, whichever you prefer.

You skipped 3:9. “And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?” Really?? Lord God can’t see them?

Sure. Of course. Paul’s letters and the epistles of the apostolic fathers and I’m sure other lettres that are long gone. In some churches 1 & 2 Clement were read as scripture alongside the gospels and Paul. I’m making a point about the To/For Bullingerism. Hey, it’s a novel, systematic theology contrived in the 19th century. If it helps, go with it, but I find it to be narrow, shortsighted, and un inspired.

Paul wasn’t writing TO you, either. He was writing TO members of his ekklesia in Thessalonika, Galatia, Corinth, Phillipi…

There are two creation myths in the Bible: Genesis 1–2:3; Genesis 2:3–… Inerrantists do not or will not see it. And that’s just fine. But it’s not hard to see. The language and style are different. The gods are different - El and Yahweh El. The first describes a perfect creation, the second describes a carnal, corrupted creation.

Fair observations. When one steps back to take an unfiltered look at it, the absurdity gets pretty gnarly. And, careful, that five-fingered glove won’t fit that twelve-fingered hand. I always wondered: what am I being saved from?

No. The whole point is to value this life, to be alive. Gracefully. With compassion. Where is heaven? Above? In the sky? How do you know where or what this heaven is? What will you do there? Show off your rewards? Demonstrate what an obedient slave you are? Jesus said, “If those who lead you say to you, 'See, the kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you.” And a few related quotes from Henry Miller, “Every moment is a golden one for him who has the vision to recognize it as such.” “The moment one gives close attention to any thing, even a blade of grass it becomes a mysterious, awesome, indescribably magnificent world in itself.” “The aim of life is to live, and to live means to be aware, joyously, drunkenly, serenely, divinely aware.”

“….all the social advantages there are in being in a cult.” What could ever be said to someone who beleeeves this? It is daunting to even imagine the level of delusion required, yet, I see it and read about it every day. Very, very sad.

The juice is dead.

What year was this? It sounds like that period of victor’s increasing unbelief/disbelief, hence his fatigue.

The error of four crucified is not explained by fundamentalism. It's surprising that this actual error was invented by a man as educated as Bullinger. That he would point to an 18th century cemetery in France as supporting evidence is even more surprising for such a man, until you find out he was a fervent flat earther. Then, it's, "Ohhhhhh..." It's surprising that a scholar as proficient in languages as Bullinger would fail so profoundly to understand how translation works and why word for word literal translations of idiomatic expressions like ἐντεῦθεν καὶ ἐντεῦθεν are ineffectual. The word "one" wasn't added in the way it is suggested. It is not a corrupt interpolation motivated by some nefarious agenda. Translators add words sometimes so an expression in the source language will make sense in the target language. This is not a radical idea. That Bullinger pretended not to understand ἐντεῦθεν is an adverb modifying the verb crucified and answering the question "Where?" is beyond astonishing. It does not modify "two." That Bullinger defecates on all that he should know about Greek and English is suspect. Who now has the nefarious agenda? Why would he invent such deception? Four crucified is so blatantly inaccurate and irresponsible that, for me, it calls into question everything Bullinger wrote. I'm not saying Bullinger was wrong about everything, just that everything he wrote deserves scrutiny.

Right. He very briefly and stupidly mentions the Hebrew radicals (the sequence of consonants forming the root of the verb) and that they are the "most difficult radicals in all of Hebrew"... yada yada bull yada shonta... but quickly trails off because he has no fcking clue what he is talking about and then changes the subject to Paul and what he says about Christ sitting at the right hand of God... yada bull yada shonta... therefore, BOOM! Shabath means to sit, not to cease working, because God doesn't need to rest, he sits, Sits, SITS!!.. See, kidz? Math! Accuracy! Like in so many sermons or "teachings," he mentions something technical (or mundane) that he read once or heard somewhere or imagined in a fantasy but never quite understood, because stupidity, and he regurgitates it incorrectly, hoping his audience won't understand it, either, but will be impressed with the esoterica and just smugly mutter, "Mmmmph." Short answer: E. Coli-laced word salad. And he is a charlatan.

Here is another example of victor contradicting himself. There are hundreds of examples of this kind of error laced throughly throughout "his writings" and recorded sermons. Either he was a liar or just stupid, or both. Either way, he hoped no one would notice or question the dead rabbits pulled from his hat. If one digs beneath the glowing, seductive, superficial word salad of his "teachings," one can find out. Now, this effort will require a sharp and sturdy tool to penetrate the thick, petrified crust of bullshonta. An infant's fingernail should suffice. I want to know what the text says. I have no doctrinal agenda. (For a doctrinal perspective, go to WordWolf's excellent discussion of Genesis 1 he started in the Doctrinal forum.) As far as I can tell, there is no adverb then in Genesis 1:2. There is no textual evidence supporting victor's bloody rabbit. None. NONE. To say there should be is to tip one's hand to using an eisegetical process of "private interpretation" - a method victor CONSTANTLY railed against! To your point, like the serpent, victor added words to the text ALL THE TIME. As you know, he also deleted words, even entire paragraphs - "Cross it out!" Indeed, there are inauthentic, interpolated words and verses that made it into the Bible, but only those that didn't fit victor's glove were crossed out. And he crossed out added words because he didn't understand how translations work, as in John 19:18. victor also frequently changed the meaning of words. Partly because he didn't understand how language works and partly as a means to force fit his voodoo into his bloody glove. Further into Genesis at chapter 2 verse 2, he changes the meaning of the Hebrew verb shabbath. He says it means SIT, not REST, and not that it should mean SIT, but that it actually means SIT, because God doesn't need to REST. A complete invention! Total bullshonta! A blatant lie from the mouth of a liar! Shabbath means to cease, to desist, to rest (from labor), to stop working. Period. It never, ever, EVER means to sit.