Nathan_Jr

Well, that phrasing seems cumbersome. Is that how you would have written the sentence?

1000 points! The quote is attributed to Vladimir Putin, who addressed his parliament a few hours before Biden gave a speech in Poland. "Millions of people in theWest understand that they are being led to a real spiritual catastrophe."

I didn't use BY.

To whom is this quote attributed? ”…people…understand that they are being led to a REAL spiritual catastrophe.” A. VPW B. Mike C. LCM D. johniam E. Vladimir Putin

The more I know, the more I know I don’t know.

The ridiculous shall be ridiculed.

"During Living Victoriously VP said 'Spiritually I've seen 4 things in life: religion, noreligion, corrupt religion, and true Christianity. Still rings true for me.'" Is that what he said? Those are the four things he had seen..."spiritually"? What an odd thing to say. I'm not surprised to learn that victor said something so stupid. "He (LCM) still has as much conviction in his voice as he ever did..." Sounds like LCM is sincere. What did victor say about sincerity? "CG has something in writing that says there's at least 16 things where VP was wrong about something." Is that what CG wrote? Sounds like CG either failed to absorb it the first time or he's unable to see the actual number is an order of magnitude greater than 16. "SIT would definitely be a step in the right direction, but so would reading the bible." It would? A step in the right direction? Which direction would that be?

What I see in this story is a real and true rebirth. It seems to me no "teaching," no doxy, no ritual, no book, no organization, no mantra can achieve this kind of liberation for anyone.

Word!

To whom are you responding?

I heard he left Chicago and is bound for New Orleans.

I’ve come to understand that something doesn’t have to be factually correct for it to be true. (A paradox?) Reading scripture with this understanding has been liberating for me. And profitable.

Oh.

Where is the evidence for this claim?

Childish and childlike are not equivalents. Matthew 18:3 The value of a child in this verse (and connected to 1 Cor 13:12) is NOT that a child is obedient and will just beleeeve anything a self-proclaimed teacher “teaches.” Find out for yourselves what Matt 18:3 means. ——— Charity is a translation of the Latin caritas. The KJV relied heavily on the Latin Vulgate for 1 Cor 13. That’s fine. Charity works, but not super effectually. In modern usage charity takes on different shades of meaning than it did in Elizabethan English. Paul wrote in Greek, not Latin, not Aramaic/Syriac. The word love in this chapter is always a form of the Greek agape. ——- Just making sense of the Bible. Bless your hearts. I wish you could read it in the original.

Yes. Of course.

Hey, I didn't write the book. EVERYTHING? Is that everything without exception or everything without distinction. The context of this website is abuse survival and healing. No. Do you? I rest my case.

Unresolved? No. You miss the mark. Again. It sounds like abuse. It sounds like she has been letting it play out for years. It sounds like she has let it play out long enough. Hence, her fatigue. l can make inferences about her relationship, because what she describes sounds just like my experience. She can't change him. He has to wake up on his own. I hope she has a support system outside of her marriage and the cult. I hope she has the courage to stand up, declare her freedom, and begin the healing process.

Why not? She used the pronoun "his."

I see your point and I agree with you. You left out Yahweh telling Abraham to murder his own innocent son. That's about as f'd as it gets for me. But, but, but... Right, we could do this all day. I see the Bible as Mythos, allegory, poetry, propaganda. Man's attempt at explaining the unexplainable. And just man telling stories. And man writing poetry. And man writing propaganda. Some of the stories are based on historical fact. Jesus was a real man. Paul was real. There are lessons to be learned about ourselves in these stories. I do not believe God writes literature, scripture, instruction books. I do not believe God tells tells anyone what to write. I don't believe God requires binoculars, as Mike believes. Again, this is awkward to articulate, because it really depends on what one means by "Theopneustos" and "God." Ultimately, I can't make a logical argument for or against the theopneustos of any book, to your point. But it doesn't matter, because no holy book is required for one to understand Truth, Love, Principle... God.

When Louis Armstrong was asked, "What is jazz?" He said, "If you have to ask, you'll never know." Somehow this seems relevant.

Hot and steamy.

I'll go with theopneustos = divine inspiration, divinely inspired. A human's work that is thospneustos will reflect the qualities of God, which, I suppose does mean perfect: perfectly accurate, perfectly beautiful, etc. (This leads to my earlier question: What is God?) I've witnessed athletic feats that I could only describe as divinely-inspired. And the athlete, when asked, can't explain how he/she did it, rendering the reporter's question, "What were you thinking when...?", to be utterly stupid. I recently heard Bob Dylan admit in an interview that he could never write songs like he did in the 1960s. The interviewer was shocked, but Bob was nonchalant and matter-of-fact and humble. It was a magical time, he said. He doesn't understand it himself. Certain literature, poetry, scripture so profoundly affects me, I'm moved to tears of joy. I've heard writers admit that sometimes the sentences or verses seem to write themselves -- there is no effort or work involved, they can't explain it, they humbly admit. Same goes for art, architecture, photography, any creative endeavor. It seems to me anything in nature or any human achievement that I might call divinely-inspired is NOT so because someone claims it to be so. Self-proclaimed works as theopneustos are surely not. Are sacred texts from around the world theopneustos? Sometimes. That is, sometimes for ALL scripture, not just Judeo-Christian scripture. Is PFAL theopneustos? No. It's bullshonta. I suppose I know it when I see it, but I would be cautious to label it theopneustos, probably because I would be too overcome with wonder and awe. The effort to label it as such seems foolish. Just my opinion. I could be wrong. And I'm perfectly ok with that.

Well the topic is On God-breathed Scripture — rather broad in scope. And your opening post is a declarative statement. I’ve asked questions in an attempt to focus the topic, but I’m not really sure what that is anymore. Though I sometimes find Bolshevik’s posts to be cryptic, I don’t think he’s off topic here. Raf, what do you want to discuss? Is there a question?

Gross.