Nathan_Jr

Right. Either Jesus said this or the author of John put those words in Jesus's mouth to advance his own agenda/theology/narrative. The lesson I take is clearly not the one the author of John intended, the lesson religious leaders feel justified to teach. Like I said, the author is positioning himself against Thomas, so he tells this story and puts those words in Jesus's mouth to bolster his position. The words belief/believing/believe do not occur in the Gospel of Thomas. An observation I find interesting. Yeah, John is obviously different from the synoptics. And only John has Jesus giving very long speeches. It seems unlikely to me, especially given the dating of John, that very long dialogues and soliloquies would have been recorded accurately, or recorded at all. If any sayings of Jesus were preserved by oral tradition, and then written down, the shorter sayings would be the most likely to endure, it seems to me. None of this is to say that I don't find value in John's Gospel. And that value is not dependent on its historicity. Do I find all of what is written in the Gospels to be credible? No. For me the value of Mythos transcends historical credibility.

Here is a great example of HOW to think vs WHAT to beleeeve. This is what it means to doubt. There is no risk in doubting, questioning. Beleeef is a liability. (It might even cost you $787.5M for spreading beleeef.) I had the same impressions and questions when I read this story. And the same kinds of questions for the withered hand healing in India and for the rabbi teaching the bastard Jew bar mitzvah and so many others. One hundred years ago Bertrand Russell, when asked about the greatest existential threat to mankind, he answered, "Credulousness." (I'll find the clip and post it.) -- Because we are in the doctrinal sub, I'll bring up doubting Thomas, again. I think the author of John had a problem with Thomas for reasons we can never know for sure. I don't take the same traditional lesson that most religious leaders propagate. Thomas found out something. He found TF out!! Of all the apostles he was the only one who who was rewarded for questioning, doubting, endeavoring to find out. His reward? A profound disillusionment, understanding and awareness that left him speechless -- because, what could he possibly say? He didn't have to believe, he knew, he found out.

This. And this. Thanks.

The material abundance/prosperity doctrine was a subtle, devious bait and switch. I remember many cunning, underhanded comments about "what's available" whenever anyone half-seriously mentioned something that they wanted. You know, like when watching a football game on TV and a commercial for a car or truck or something comes on. Someone might say, "Oooohh, I really want one of those for my next vehicle." A meaningless statement. An innocuous conversation starter. A nothing expression. But the FC, the local FITW, just had interject softly, yet dead MF'n seriously, "Well, it's available." Which, of course, is the bait designed to entice the fish to ask, "It is?" Then the hook would be set when the FC answered, "You just got to know how (H-O-W) to get it...." I never chased these shiny lures because I learned my lesson with Amway. My aunt and uncle used to force the phrase "the business" into every conversation, no matter how mundane. Dropping this vague phrase was so intentional, so cunning, so wicked. The uninitiated would take the bait and ask "what business are you in?" (Mmmph... huge mistake... here we go!) If anyone believes vpw or Amway and commits their life, it almost always leads to financial ruin for the acolyte, but untold material riches for the people at the top of the pyramid.

That, too. It's also nervous, reactive tick born of a desperate hope to distract and deflect the thorough refutations submitted by everyone. It's a smokescreen. It's a tactic designed to avoid answering questions or admitting to the logical and spiritual proofs provided by everyone else on the thread.

Mmmmph

Right. And I challenged the the idea that man does not help his fellow man unless an idea of God is involved. You seemed to imply that helpfulness must come from outside a godless framework (Darwinian Construct). I have received loving kindness and generosity from atheists, agnostics, Jews, Christians of various sects, non-theists, Taoists, Buddhists... I can't speak to their motives. Maybe they were operating out of fear of reprisal or hope for reward. I only know that they were all equally helpful, whether with God or without. And I have extended loving kindness and generosity to the same folks. This I have done without thought or hope for reward or fear of reprisal from any god or any human.

We don't have to use those words. Not trying to start a fight. Not even trying to debate. Truly, just trying to understand what you mean. You're trying to describe a world without God. That's helpful. I get it.

So, humans who help humans to survive but do not help deer to survive are operating within a Darwinian construct?

I've wondered what this phase means. I'll let Chockfull explain what he means. However, I suspect it's a pejorative against Darwinism as dogma. Darwin's theories are not dogmatic. Evolutionary theory today, and even those predating Darwin, have never been dogmatic. It could imply something about "survival of the fittest." A phrase that cannot be attributed to Darwin -- and a very superficial description that is insufficient for evolutionary theory. I really don't know what Darwinian Construct means. Chockfull? A little help?

It seems to me that every charlatan, every false prophet, every phony guru has at least one thing in common: they all make great claims for themselves to speak for, or to be sent from, God. This, it seems to me, is your sign that they surely DO NOT speak for God. You will know them by their fruit. Period.

I respectfully disagree with your assessment. ALL of the transcript is as worthless as the red drapes story.

Those who claim to speak for God are surely those who do not.

Hmmmm... a coder, a dancer, a comedian, a window washer, an absorber... A real polymath.

Really? This is not what I observe. I see man helping his fellow man all the time. I see compassion demonstrated every day by people who believe in gods and by those who don’t. I think we all need help from each other. I wouldn’t be where I am today without the help of others, and those others wouldn’t be where they are without my help. This is true whether one believes or doesn’t believe in the right or wrong god or in any god at all. Could we as human beings ever have made it out of the savanna without cooperating, helping, giving, caring, protecting each other?

Precisely, scientifically, the class was riddled with "mistakes" and error in every segment of every session. I know. Prophesy is not problematic, neither where it begins nor where it ends. So, it must not be prophesy. Math. I see. Scrubbing. Whitewashing. Got it! He was? Well, that settles it! Victor said it, you beleeeved it.... This is gut-busting hilarity unto itself. I'll let it sit there like a duck. Is that what you thought? Well, it's settled then. You didn't?

The ministry died because it was built on a pile of sandy lies instead of rock. The monster was spawned from victor's own seed. Victor seeded that monster.

Or one could just read it in the original, in Bullinger, in little book hat took victor 18hrs per day for 30 years to copy.

Impossible! "The class" was completely complete. The perfection of the original "class" could never be duplicated. That's why the '77 PFAL was scrapped at the last minute.

It never did. It's a rhetorical question.

Again, I'm trilingual in glossolalia. I can even write in glossolalia. I can even interpret those two sentences above into one of my glossolalias. No one "taught" me. I can speak TF out of SIT. And I can interpret TF out of them, too.

He did?

So what?

Oh. I thought it was because that's what victor signed off on, but you were going against his method and making it your own.

Those are words Mike uses to begin so many of his replies. Just trying to communicate on his level.