Im assuming you likely put no credence in scripture at this point?
A brief timeout to answer this question, which I overlooked when it was originally posted.
It is correct that I put no credence in scripture as far as its truthfulness. It would be incorrect to say I don't think there is any coherent message to be found in its pages. I believe the Bible teaches what it teaches. Sometimes it's contradictory. Often it's not. But in any event, I think one can look at the Bible fairly and come to a conclusion about what it teaches, even without believing it.
I believe in a very real, tangible way that the Bible teaches an absent Christ and that the Word is the only thing that takes the place of the absent Christ in a manner outside the subjective control of someone claiming to experience him.
That I believe it's a bunch of hooey is rather besides the point, as OldSkool correctly noted in the remainder of the post I just quoted. To wit:
Youagreewithwierwille on this point, and thats cool because you give reasoned answers for your position and not a line of circular reasoning that ends with "its this way because wierwille said its this way." For that I am thankful! Disagreement in matters such as these can be a fun way to see other perspectives and such.
[Emphasis mine]
If you can't see my point scripturally, then I have failed to communicate it. If you don't agree with my point, fine by me. I'm not exactly disagreeing with yours.
In doctrinal, I tend not to challenge the authority of scripture (now and then, as an aside, but not generally). This forum is trying to get at what the Bible actually teaches. That's what I tried to get at. That I don't believe it anymore has no bearing on what it teaches.
A brief timeout to answer this question, which I overlooked when it was originally posted.
It is correct that I put no credence in scripture as far as its truthfulness. It would be incorrect to say I don't think there is any coherent message to be found in its pages. I believe the Bible teaches what it teaches. Sometimes it's contradictory. Often it's not. But in any event, I think one can look at the Bible fairly and come to a conclusion about what it teaches, even without believing it.
I believe in a very real, tangible way that the Bible teaches an absent Christ and that the Word is the only thing that takes the place of the absent Christ in a manner outside the subjective control of someone claiming to experience him.
That I believe it's a bunch of hooey is rather besides the point, as OldSkool correctly noted in the remainder of the post I just quoted. To wit:
[Emphasis mine]
If you can't see my point scripturally, then I have failed to communicate it. If you don't agree with my point, fine by me. I'm not exactly disagreeing with yours.
In doctrinal, I tend not to challenge the authority of scripture (now and then, as an aside, but not generally). This forum is trying to get at what the Bible actually teaches. That's what I tried to get at. That I don't believe it anymore has no bearing on what it teaches.
In doctrinal, I tend not to challenge the authority of scripture (now and then, as an aside, but not generally). This forum is trying to get at what the Bible actually teaches. That's what I tried to get at. That I don't believe it anymore has no bearing on what it teaches.
"authority of scripture"
"what the Bible actually teaches"
Your belief has no bearing on what it teaches?
Is this a vote that scripture interprets itself? I tend to the reader interprets what they read. Unless they don't.
The Roman Catholic church claims authority over what the Bible teaches, this makes sense since they assembled it . . . unless they didn't.
The Bible teaches that Isaac had two sons, Jacob and Esau. The Bible teaches that, whether I believe all three are historical figures or all three are mythological archetypes [take a wild guess].
That does not mean the Bible interprets itself. That's a believer's position. My position is that the Bible is completely unaware of itself as a collection of books. The gospels weren't written to complement each other like a rhetorical jigsaw puzzle you could piece together to suddenly find two entries into Jerusalem four cricified with Jesus, six denials of Peter, etc. The gospels were written to replace the inadequate gospels that came before. Mark was written by someone in desperate need of a Palestinian atlas. Matthew and Luke each told a virgin birth story, but the tales are utterly incompatible. And none of them found the raising of Lazarus worth mentioning.
If the Bible interprets itself, and if it is inerrant, those observations require explanation. Drop those presuppositions and the explanations are easy: the earlier gospel writers don't mention the raising of Lazarus because the story hadn't been made up yet.
But the stories are all there. The Bible teaches what it teaches. Unbelief relieves me of any compelling reason to reconcile its narratives with each other or with reality.
How many times did Peter deny Jesus? Matthew says 3. Mark says 3. Luke says 3. John says 3. Clearly the answer is 6! No it's not. Assuming this bs story actually took place, and the likelihood of it is miniscule, there were three denials, not six. "But the accounts are contradictory!"
They are?!? The vapors! [faints].
Seriously. The scriptures teach what they teach, whether I accept it as gospel or reject it as fantasy.
I can discuss it as easily as I discuss Marvel movies, Greek mythology, The Lord of the Rings and Star Wars. Doesn't mean I accept any of them as gospel, nor does it mean I reject every lesson taught by any of those works of fiction.
The Bible teaches that Isaac had two sons, Jacob and Esau. The Bible teaches that, whether I believe all three are historical figures or all three are mythological archetypes [take a wild guess].
That does not mean the Bible interprets itself. That's a believer's position. My position is that the Bible is completely unaware of itself as a collection of books. The gospels weren't written to complement each other like a rhetorical jigsaw puzzle you could piece together to suddenly find two entries into Jerusalem four cricified with Jesus, six denials of Peter, etc. The gospels were written to replace the inadequate gospels that came before. Mark was written by someone in desperate need of a Palestinian atlas. Matthew and Luke each told a virgin birth story, but the tales are utterly incompatible. And none of them found the raising of Lazarus worth mentioning.
If the Bible interprets itself, and if it is inerrant, those observations require explanation. Drop those presuppositions and the explanations are easy: the earlier gospel writers don't mention the raising of Lazarus because the story hadn't been made up yet.
But the stories are all there. The Bible teaches what it teaches. Unbelief relieves me of any compelling reason to reconcile its narratives with each other or with reality.
How many times did Peter deny Jesus? Matthew says 3. Mark says 3. Luke says 3. John says 3. Clearly the answer is 6! No it's not. Assuming this bs story actually took place, and the likelihood of it is miniscule, there were three denials, not six. "But the accounts are contradictory!"
They are?!? The vapors! [faints].
Seriously. The scriptures teach what they teach, whether I accept it as gospel or reject it as fantasy.
I can discuss it as easily as I discuss Marvel movies, Greek mythology, The Lord of the Rings and Star Wars. Doesn't mean I accept any of them as gospel, nor does it mean I reject every lesson taught by any of those works of fiction.
Yes I can understand that boys are not made of wood with infinitely growing noses accompanied by a personal talking cricket. And you can't fish inside a whale. That is gross.
I also understand books don't write themselves, and that they exist alongside living beings.
And people themselves don't exist in vacuum. There's innumerable interconnections between stories and themselves.
It appears to me VPW implied this collection of books are a source. As if life itself springs from them. And by studying them secrets are revealed. And he did some other things, which involved gloves. But that is obviously a lie. It's ink and paper.
The Bible may be the work of the Roman Catholics, and it may be that body of people's book. It may be made of other books that belonged with other groups as well.
I don't know people who don't contradict themselves. . . So if something that originated from people did not contradict itself . . . Well my nose would grow.
Your unbelief as you term it, relieves you of what? I don't think anyone is relieved of facing contradictions. Good stories reflect reality, reflect people, and point to contradictions.
Your unbelief as you term it, relieves you of what?
Raf can answer for himself, but I think he is saying it relieves him of cognitive dissonance. That's my take, at least. And I can relate to his position.
Because he doesn't believe the Bible is inerrant, or that it all fits together like a hand in a glove, any apparent contradiction or discrepancy is not a problem for him. He doesn't have to make it fit. But he can still find meaning in the stories.
Raf can answer for himself, but I think he is saying it relieves him of cognitive dissonance. That's my take, at least. And I can relate to his position.
Because he doesn't believe the Bible is inerrant, or that it all fits together like a hand in a glove, any apparent contradiction or discrepancy is not a problem for him. He doesn't have to make it fit. But he can still find meaning in the stories.
Errancy is only a problem for the inerrantist.
Cognitive dissonance can be when you feel one way and know something else. Maybe by unbelief what is meant is letting go? Making a choice?
The inerrantist is the lover of Victor Paul Wierwille, who did not write or author The Bible or anything else. VPW presented the problems nobody asked about and then sold the solution.
So we don't play by the rules.
Discrepancies are only a problem if you decide they are.
If one finds meaning in a story, does that make the story a teacher? Taking you beyond? I feel there's more.
Cognitive dissonance can be when you feel one way and know something else. Maybe by unbelief what is meant is letting go? Making a choice?
The inerrantist is the lover of Victor Paul Wierwille, who did not write or author The Bible or anything else. VPW presented the problems nobody asked about and then sold the solution.
So we don't play by the rules.
Discrepancies are only a problem if you decide they are.
If one finds meaning in a story, does that make the story a teacher? Taking you beyond? I feel there's more.
In a way unbelief could mean letting go, as belief could mean clinging. Maybe not making a choice, rather, being without choice, without attachment, open. For me, BELEEF in dogma is problematic.
Discrepancies are a problem if you start with the proposition that there are no discrepancies.
Yeah, the story is a teacher is an awkward idea for me. Been thinking about that. Not sure.
In a way unbelief could mean letting go, as belief could mean clinging. Maybe not making a choice, rather, being without choice, without attachment, open. For me, BELEEF in dogma is problematic.
Discrepancies are a problem if you start with the proposition that there are no discrepancies.
Yeah, the story is a teacher is an awkward idea for me. Been thinking about that. Not sure.
I don't believe Pinocchio exists, therefore I am under no obligation to explain The Pinocchio Paradox.
Personally I like paradoxes and the limits of logic.
Most of us are driven to solve problems. Designing better gloves could be a good business, too.
There are lessons in paradox. Does that make paradox a teacher? Can you write your questions on a 3x5 card and mail them to: The Paradox, P.O. Box...?
Are there lessons in paradoxes?
First someone has to find the Paradox. Then they and others decide, hey, that kinda neat. Then try to solve it. Why? Gotta solve stuff. There's always another problem.
Or play soduku.
I think stories involve more emotion though. The Bible is stories, and lists, and poems, and songs and psalms which I think are something but I don't know. But it's not just cognitive.
Maybe when VPW was glove-fitting that was part of the emotional suppression?
now, don't be emotional when counting these cocks crowing . . . Here a cock, there a cock, . . . Boom . . .Cocks are birds with rubber gloves on their heads
First someone has to find the Paradox. Then they and others decide, hey, that kinda neat. Then try to solve it. Why? Gotta solve stuff. There's always another problem.
Often, if not always, paradoxes are unsolvable. That's why they are paradoxes. Isn't trying to solve a paradox futile? Is a solution desired? Is it not enough to just see the paradox for what it is?
Often, if not always, paradoxes are unsolvable. That's why they are paradoxes. Isn't trying to solve a paradox futile? Is a solution desired? Is it not enough to just see the paradox for what it is?
There are 3 types of paradoxes. Some get solved. Some don't. There's a third.
I think we evolved to instinctively solve problems. So there's that.
Finding limits forces us get creative within our bounds. That might be involved.
When vpw was counting cock crows was he beyond the bounds of the story? Or each of the stories? He wasn't reading.
Why did Gepeto give Pinocchio an apple? Wood doesn't eat. Obvious symbolism but the science doesn't make sense. Oh no.
Stories involve a suspension of belief, not unbelief. Is that reading above the story? Some get behind the story, into the mind of the author.
I don't believe Pinocchio exists, therefore I am under no obligation to explain The Pinocchio Paradox.
Personally I like paradoxes and the limits of logic.
Most of us are driven to solve problems. Designing better gloves could be a good business, too.
The original story of Pinnochio was a lot darker - more mysterious - and something to mentally wrestle with like a paradox in some ways - unlike Disney’s cheesy version…recently I watched Guillermo del Toro's Pinocchio (2022) . This is not your typical rewrite. It’s darker and gets into adult themes. Visually it’s impressive using stop-action animation and I didn’t notice any computer generated images - it’s like a real world…in tone this reiteration is probably the closest to the original story, written by Carlo Collodi in 1881.
A critic on the late Roger Ebert’s website said of it “…Pinocchio, born without the inhabitations of the human condition, only conforms to the norms to gain his father's validation. Del Toro is nothing if not a gentle champion of the misunderstood to those whose appearance, origin, or worldview isolate them from the homogeneity of the masses.”
that’s some heavy stuff packed into what I’ve always dismissed as a silly kid’s story
Returning to topic: I believe the Bible teaches an absent Christ [more accurately, an absent Jesus] in ways that are consistent with what Wierwille taught. That Wierwille exploited the concept for his selfish gain no more negates what the Bible teaches than does the fact that I think it's all fabricated superstitious snake oil.
Returning to topic: I believe the Bible teaches an absent Christ [more accurately, an absent Jesus] in ways that are consistent with what Wierwille taught. That Wierwille exploited the concept for his selfish gain no more negates what the Bible teaches than does the fact that I think it's all fabricated superstitious snake oil.
Ive stated copious time where Im coming from, and I don't think our disagreement is stark. As I stated earlier, a physically, flesh and blood, sandal and tunic wearing Jesus is not here, so fair enough. Scripture teaches he was changed, ascended, and is present in his Lordship, directing the affairs of his Church. According to scripture, that long laundry list I did in Acts for example, shows copious direct interaction. Given you are at a place where you don't believe scripture, I wouldnt expect you to believe those accounts either, and thats not an issues with me. Its a doctrinal point we disagree on , though we aren't too far an accord. I no longer feel the need to rush in and make an issue out of how anyone feels regarding scripture. Personally, I feel that we are on the path we are walking and that path may be completely different from the path other's are on. In my own life, I had about an 8 year run where I didnt believe much else besides happy hour started at 4 at my favorite bar. Im a much happier person now that I can actually do what the way international forbids, and in large part what I think mike struggles with the most, and that is accept people's positions and beliefs that are different from mine and still treat them with love and respect! Rock on Raf!
The original story of Pinnochio was a lot darker - more mysterious - and something to mentally wrestle with like a paradox in some ways - unlike Disney’s cheesy version…recently I watched Guillermo del Toro's Pinocchio (2022) . This is not your typical rewrite. It’s darker and gets into adult themes. Visually it’s impressive using stop-action animation and I didn’t notice any computer generated images - it’s like a real world…in tone this reiteration is probably the closest to the original story, written by Carlo Collodi in 1881.
A critic on the late Roger Ebert’s website said of it “…Pinocchio, born without the inhabitations of the human condition, only conforms to the norms to gain his father's validation. Del Toro is nothing if not a gentle champion of the misunderstood to those whose appearance, origin, or worldview isolate them from the homogeneity of the masses.”
that’s some heavy stuff packed into what I’ve always dismissed as a silly kid’s story
Speaking of dark, have you reviewed the history of Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, etc? Dude walks up and just gropes a sleeping woman . . . .
Disney's Pinocchio is symbolism in every scene. It's a good primer. Yes the original Pinocchio didn't live, they hung him for being a jerk.
Raf had pointed out Jesus is present and not present. Why is something like that a contradiction or discrepancy? Why is one inclined to explain it?
Is it because random writings are cobbled together? Or that each story is focused on a different aspect of reality?
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
427
271
423
257
Popular Days
Feb 14
142
Oct 13
105
Jan 18
101
Oct 8
88
Top Posters In This Topic
Mike 427 posts
T-Bone 271 posts
OldSkool 423 posts
Nathan_Jr 257 posts
Popular Days
Feb 14 2023
142 posts
Oct 13 2022
105 posts
Jan 18 2023
101 posts
Oct 8 2022
88 posts
Popular Posts
OldSkool
First off, Biblically speaking, Christ has never been absent...that doctrine does not come close to occuring anywhere in the Bible. Yet the way international teaches the word of God takes the place of
Bolshevik
Mike's apparent anger toward Christ and emphasis on obedience . . . that's Wayworld . . . that's the annihilation of the individual
waysider
Soooo...He used ONE verse from the Amplified Bible, HALF a chapter from the New English Bible and required PFAL '77 students to get some version from the 1800's that has a name so unremarkable you can
Posted Images
waysider
When I first heard Princeton, I thought he went to barber college.
(Princeton was once a popular haircut style for men.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I was stuck in a phony college at Rome City for 2 years…man, that was a close shave.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
I escaped Gunnison by a hairs breadth...was close for sure.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
A brief timeout to answer this question, which I overlooked when it was originally posted.
It is correct that I put no credence in scripture as far as its truthfulness. It would be incorrect to say I don't think there is any coherent message to be found in its pages. I believe the Bible teaches what it teaches. Sometimes it's contradictory. Often it's not. But in any event, I think one can look at the Bible fairly and come to a conclusion about what it teaches, even without believing it.
I believe in a very real, tangible way that the Bible teaches an absent Christ and that the Word is the only thing that takes the place of the absent Christ in a manner outside the subjective control of someone claiming to experience him.
That I believe it's a bunch of hooey is rather besides the point, as OldSkool correctly noted in the remainder of the post I just quoted. To wit:
[Emphasis mine]
If you can't see my point scripturally, then I have failed to communicate it. If you don't agree with my point, fine by me. I'm not exactly disagreeing with yours.
In doctrinal, I tend not to challenge the authority of scripture (now and then, as an aside, but not generally). This forum is trying to get at what the Bible actually teaches. That's what I tried to get at. That I don't believe it anymore has no bearing on what it teaches.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Thanks!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
"authority of scripture"
"what the Bible actually teaches"
Your belief has no bearing on what it teaches?
Is this a vote that scripture interprets itself? I tend to the reader interprets what they read. Unless they don't.
The Roman Catholic church claims authority over what the Bible teaches, this makes sense since they assembled it . . . unless they didn't.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
modcat5
I think you're overanalyzing what I wrote.
The Bible teaches that Isaac had two sons, Jacob and Esau. The Bible teaches that, whether I believe all three are historical figures or all three are mythological archetypes [take a wild guess].
That does not mean the Bible interprets itself. That's a believer's position. My position is that the Bible is completely unaware of itself as a collection of books. The gospels weren't written to complement each other like a rhetorical jigsaw puzzle you could piece together to suddenly find two entries into Jerusalem four cricified with Jesus, six denials of Peter, etc. The gospels were written to replace the inadequate gospels that came before. Mark was written by someone in desperate need of a Palestinian atlas. Matthew and Luke each told a virgin birth story, but the tales are utterly incompatible. And none of them found the raising of Lazarus worth mentioning.
If the Bible interprets itself, and if it is inerrant, those observations require explanation. Drop those presuppositions and the explanations are easy: the earlier gospel writers don't mention the raising of Lazarus because the story hadn't been made up yet.
But the stories are all there. The Bible teaches what it teaches. Unbelief relieves me of any compelling reason to reconcile its narratives with each other or with reality.
How many times did Peter deny Jesus? Matthew says 3. Mark says 3. Luke says 3. John says 3. Clearly the answer is 6! No it's not. Assuming this bs story actually took place, and the likelihood of it is miniscule, there were three denials, not six. "But the accounts are contradictory!"
They are?!? The vapors! [faints].
Seriously. The scriptures teach what they teach, whether I accept it as gospel or reject it as fantasy.
I can discuss it as easily as I discuss Marvel movies, Greek mythology, The Lord of the Rings and Star Wars. Doesn't mean I accept any of them as gospel, nor does it mean I reject every lesson taught by any of those works of fiction.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Yes I can understand that boys are not made of wood with infinitely growing noses accompanied by a personal talking cricket. And you can't fish inside a whale. That is gross.
I also understand books don't write themselves, and that they exist alongside living beings.
And people themselves don't exist in vacuum. There's innumerable interconnections between stories and themselves.
It appears to me VPW implied this collection of books are a source. As if life itself springs from them. And by studying them secrets are revealed. And he did some other things, which involved gloves. But that is obviously a lie. It's ink and paper.
The Bible may be the work of the Roman Catholics, and it may be that body of people's book. It may be made of other books that belonged with other groups as well.
I don't know people who don't contradict themselves. . . So if something that originated from people did not contradict itself . . . Well my nose would grow.
Your unbelief as you term it, relieves you of what? I don't think anyone is relieved of facing contradictions. Good stories reflect reality, reflect people, and point to contradictions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Raf can answer for himself, but I think he is saying it relieves him of cognitive dissonance. That's my take, at least. And I can relate to his position.
Because he doesn't believe the Bible is inerrant, or that it all fits together like a hand in a glove, any apparent contradiction or discrepancy is not a problem for him. He doesn't have to make it fit. But he can still find meaning in the stories.
Errancy is only a problem for the inerrantist.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Cognitive dissonance can be when you feel one way and know something else. Maybe by unbelief what is meant is letting go? Making a choice?
The inerrantist is the lover of Victor Paul Wierwille, who did not write or author The Bible or anything else. VPW presented the problems nobody asked about and then sold the solution.
So we don't play by the rules.
Discrepancies are only a problem if you decide they are.
If one finds meaning in a story, does that make the story a teacher? Taking you beyond? I feel there's more.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
In a way unbelief could mean letting go, as belief could mean clinging. Maybe not making a choice, rather, being without choice, without attachment, open. For me, BELEEF in dogma is problematic.
Discrepancies are a problem if you start with the proposition that there are no discrepancies.
Yeah, the story is a teacher is an awkward idea for me. Been thinking about that. Not sure.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I don't believe Pinocchio exists, therefore I am under no obligation to explain The Pinocchio Paradox.
Personally I like paradoxes and the limits of logic.
Most of us are driven to solve problems. Designing better gloves could be a good business, too.
Edited by BolshevikMaking the grammar fit
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
There are lessons in paradox. Does that make paradox a teacher? Can you write your questions on a 3x5 card and mail them to: The Paradox, P.O. Box...?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Are there lessons in paradoxes?
First someone has to find the Paradox. Then they and others decide, hey, that kinda neat. Then try to solve it. Why? Gotta solve stuff. There's always another problem.
Or play soduku.
I think stories involve more emotion though. The Bible is stories, and lists, and poems, and songs and psalms which I think are something but I don't know. But it's not just cognitive.
Maybe when VPW was glove-fitting that was part of the emotional suppression?
now, don't be emotional when counting these cocks crowing . . . Here a cock, there a cock, . . . Boom . . .Cocks are birds with rubber gloves on their heads
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
And genealogies...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Often, if not always, paradoxes are unsolvable. That's why they are paradoxes. Isn't trying to solve a paradox futile? Is a solution desired? Is it not enough to just see the paradox for what it is?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
There are 3 types of paradoxes. Some get solved. Some don't. There's a third.
I think we evolved to instinctively solve problems. So there's that.
Finding limits forces us get creative within our bounds. That might be involved.
When vpw was counting cock crows was he beyond the bounds of the story? Or each of the stories? He wasn't reading.
Why did Gepeto give Pinocchio an apple? Wood doesn't eat. Obvious symbolism but the science doesn't make sense. Oh no.
Stories involve a suspension of belief, not unbelief. Is that reading above the story? Some get behind the story, into the mind of the author.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
The original story of Pinnochio was a lot darker - more mysterious - and something to mentally wrestle with like a paradox in some ways - unlike Disney’s cheesy version…recently I watched Guillermo del Toro's Pinocchio (2022) . This is not your typical rewrite. It’s darker and gets into adult themes. Visually it’s impressive using stop-action animation and I didn’t notice any computer generated images - it’s like a real world…in tone this reiteration is probably the closest to the original story, written by Carlo Collodi in 1881.
A critic on the late Roger Ebert’s website said of it “…Pinocchio, born without the inhabitations of the human condition, only conforms to the norms to gain his father's validation. Del Toro is nothing if not a gentle champion of the misunderstood to those whose appearance, origin, or worldview isolate them from the homogeneity of the masses.”
that’s some heavy stuff packed into what I’ve always dismissed as a silly kid’s story
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Maybe I just wanted to become a real boy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
modcat5
Returning to topic: I believe the Bible teaches an absent Christ [more accurately, an absent Jesus] in ways that are consistent with what Wierwille taught. That Wierwille exploited the concept for his selfish gain no more negates what the Bible teaches than does the fact that I think it's all fabricated superstitious snake oil.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Ive stated copious time where Im coming from, and I don't think our disagreement is stark. As I stated earlier, a physically, flesh and blood, sandal and tunic wearing Jesus is not here, so fair enough. Scripture teaches he was changed, ascended, and is present in his Lordship, directing the affairs of his Church. According to scripture, that long laundry list I did in Acts for example, shows copious direct interaction. Given you are at a place where you don't believe scripture, I wouldnt expect you to believe those accounts either, and thats not an issues with me. Its a doctrinal point we disagree on , though we aren't too far an accord. I no longer feel the need to rush in and make an issue out of how anyone feels regarding scripture. Personally, I feel that we are on the path we are walking and that path may be completely different from the path other's are on. In my own life, I had about an 8 year run where I didnt believe much else besides happy hour started at 4 at my favorite bar. Im a much happier person now that I can actually do what the way international forbids, and in large part what I think mike struggles with the most, and that is accept people's positions and beliefs that are different from mine and still treat them with love and respect! Rock on Raf!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Speaking of dark, have you reviewed the history of Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, etc? Dude walks up and just gropes a sleeping woman . . . .
Disney's Pinocchio is symbolism in every scene. It's a good primer. Yes the original Pinocchio didn't live, they hung him for being a jerk.
Raf had pointed out Jesus is present and not present. Why is something like that a contradiction or discrepancy? Why is one inclined to explain it?
Is it because random writings are cobbled together? Or that each story is focused on a different aspect of reality?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.