That would be true. However, I did not say it was nonsense.
if you want to stay not understanding fine
you aren't asking any questions
just ride off with that kind of comment...
is that your Jesus Christ?
and btw-
didn't he say many things that many didn't understand?
Well, I think that your response/comment above may be typical of what Todd is trying to show as a result of monochromatic thinking. -- eg. think your way or remain ignorant then questioning who my Christ is, infering that yours is better.
Neither you sir, nor Todd are Jesus Christ. I resent the comparison. (Todd, I know that you did not make or infer that comparision. This is directed soley towards CM.)
That would be true. However, I did not say it was nonsense.
Well, I think that your response/comment above may be typical of what Todd is trying to show as a result of monochromatic thinking. -- eg. think your way or remain ignorant then questioning who my Christ is, infering that yours is better.
Neither you sir, nor Todd are Jesus Christ. I resent the comparison. (Todd, I know that you did not make or infer that comparision. This is directed soley towards CM.)
infering that yours is better
I infered no such thing-nor this-
Neither you sir, nor Todd are Jesus Christ. I resent the comparison
is that your Jesus Christ?
That is a question.
didn't he say many things that many didn't understand?
It is not Jesus Christ's exclusive domain to ask questions or talk without someone understanding or not understanding what was said.
I am not gonna let you you weasel out that easily. ...
Here is your comment in it's full context.
"if you want to stay not understanding fine
you aren't asking any questions
just ride off with that kind of comment...
is that your Jesus Christ?"
I will point out that you addressed this line for line in your last post - with each line out the context in which you wrote it. Language does not work that way.
"Is that your Christ" has to refer to what was said before. It is not a question pulled from thin air.
"If you want to stay (remain) not understanding - fine" -- sets the context of the question. -- It says that you think that I do not understand - (which I have said is true)
"You aren't asking any questions" implies the reason that you believe that I will "stay" without understanding.
"Just ride off with that kind of comment" , seems to imply that I am turning my back on understanding - Just riding off ....
"Is that your Jesus?" is not just a simple question as you later tried to suggest. While aparantly rhetorical, it has far reaching implications when considered with the rest of what you wrote in the same paragraph. The term "your Jesus" itself has implications. It implies that there may be a "my Jesus" or a "his Jesus" or a "their Jesus".
Go ahead and weasel out if you want. No matter to me, I know what you said. It's either that or you should learn to write more plainly/cogently and avoid words with implications that you don't intend.
And for goodness sake CM , use some dad-gummed punctuation! Periods go after sentences. First word is capitalized ...
Well...lol...glad you answered. And It was an attempt to have you see for yourself that not all understand Jesus Christ the same way not that it's a different Jesus Christ. Not saying "a different Jesus" like some sort of devil spirit like we were taught in the way. But to raise the point that you are the one pulling out without wanting to know more or even inquiring as to the content of the posts.
And there you go calling me a weasel. Whatever man. Why do you talk like that? I have not called you any names at all or put you down in anyway. I said you don't understand, and that is exactly what you said. Along with other unnecessary comments.
But it matters not, you can't seem to make sense of it anyway.
Why not ask questions or not? Your privilege of course.
I edited it to reflect what I intended to say. And within just a few minutes after as second proof read.
Even then I did not say what you think I did. My response was carefully worded in reply to Todds similar comment. May I suggest you go back and read it again in the full context of where I said it. Read what I actually wrote.
What I said was "Some things are simply nonsensical. Some things arent".
If you do construe this to mean that I am saying that Todd theories are nonsense, then you must also construe it to mean that they are not. It then becomes ambiguous does it not? I was talking generally about "some things". No more no less.
And there you go calling me a weasel. Whatever man. Why do you talk like that? I have not called you any names at all or put you down in anyway. I said you don't understand, and that is exactly what you said. Along with other unnecessary comments.
I absolutely did not "call YOU a weasel".
"Weaseling out" is an expression like "crawfishing". It means you think they are backing out of something said or done . It does not mean you think they are either a crawfish or a weasel. It is a figure of speech.
Talking about monochromatic .............
Sheesh .....Uncle
And no. I did not just call you my uncle. It is an expression. A figure of speech that means "I give up".
At the risk of seeming "esoteric", I'd like to describe something I've been thinking about lately. It sorta fits with this Monochrome business.
You'll love this, Gooey, so I hope you will reconsider bowing out.
What if Monochrome-ism was in fact the Original Sin?
Think about it. Eve disobeyed when she ate of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. If she (representing humanity as a whole) had not "eaten" (representing digestion, assimilation, acceptance within herself) of the knowledge of good and evil (meaning the categorization of what is nice and what is not nice, or in other words the judgemental and exclusive Monochromatic perspective) ... then the world would be a different place.
On the other hand, if Eve (representing humanity as a whole) had only eaten (representing digestion, assimilation, acceptance within herself) from the tree of Life (representing the whole spectrum of possibilities, the 'rainbow" as discussed in this thread, the non-judgemental, all-inclusive, moment-by-moment view), then there would be no law, no sin, no need for Jesus to come to save us from our sin.
Well, it makes sense to me. Lots more sense than LCM's Lesbian snake theory !!
You see, without the black-and white, cut-and-dried, "knowledge of good and evil", Gooey's buddies from the Church of Christ would not be at odds with the Baptists, and Islam would not be at odds with Christianity, and the vegetarians would not be at odds with Burger King.
In Romans, it says "nothing is unclean of itself, but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean". Monochrome-ism is the constant designation of things and people and doctrines as clean or unclean. It's the knowledge of good and evil. Todd is suggesting that we move toward the Tree of Life instead.
i think you've really kicked open some real interesting doors
and i really dig what you wrote about eve...and the trees
i think it would be good if we could find ways to set those timeless words free again
...free from all the old and new ways we've learned to drastically reduce their meaning (for some reason)
it pains me sometimes, to see how much we've done this kind of thing
and at the expense of some of the greatest and longest-lived contemplative practices of judeo-christianity
...especially considering how these same traditions were most likely the dominant spiritual forms in play during the writings of most all these scriptures we hold sacred today.
:blink:
and ok...why would we even want to argue against wanting to understand how things like rainbows and tonalities might apply even more deeply to interpreting and applying scriptures and life?
cuz biblically, scripturally...seriously, playfully...however you are with it...
...this book of books seems more than obviously dripping wet with color...from gen to rev
Eph 3:10
To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God
manifold= "much variegated...marked with a great variety of colours...of cloth or a painting "
this line seems to be pointing "off-screen" to some important aspects of this writer's more chromatic revelations
...details that were not included in Ephesians, for some reason
more...
1Pe 4:10
As every man hath received the gift
even so minister the same one to another
as good stewards of the manifold grace of God
interesting too, how manifold is also used referring to lusts, diseases, temptations
more...
Eph 4:3-10
Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.
- a vessel for receiving and determining the quantity of things, whether dry or liquid
- a graduated staff for measuring, a measuring rod
- proverbially, the rule or standard of judgment
- determined extent, portion measured off, measure or limit
- the required measure, the due, fit, measure
reminds me of the "ruler" we use to measure things like light and sound
and this is interesting, too:
Eph 4:13
Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ
Rev 21:17
And he measured the wall thereof, an hundred and forty and four cubits, according to the measure of a man, that is, of the angel.
hmm
so, what might that do to these...
Eph 5:8
For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light
Eph 5:13-14
But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light.
Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light.
Eph 5:19
Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs,
singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord
is it even possible to speak (or write or move) with any sense of "spiritual melody"
if one isnt first, at least, willing to wrap their heart/mind around the gist of spiritual harmony first?
why does it seem like we have forgotten (or maybe never knew) how all those sacred ideas behind "many-colored-dreamcoats" and "divine ladders" were NOT invented during the excesses of the 60s, NOR were they invented by 80s preachers in rainbow tights?
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
9
33
19
10
Popular Days
Apr 16
28
Mar 27
7
Apr 15
6
Mar 25
5
Top Posters In This Topic
Goey 9 posts
sirguessalot 33 posts
CM 19 posts
Xena 10 posts
Popular Days
Apr 16 2006
28 posts
Mar 27 2006
7 posts
Apr 15 2006
6 posts
Mar 25 2006
5 posts
Goey
That would be true. However, I did not say it was nonsense.
Well, I think that your response/comment above may be typical of what Todd is trying to show as a result of monochromatic thinking. -- eg. think your way or remain ignorant then questioning who my Christ is, infering that yours is better.
Neither you sir, nor Todd are Jesus Christ. I resent the comparison. (Todd, I know that you did not make or infer that comparision. This is directed soley towards CM.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
It is not Jesus Christ's exclusive domain to ask questions or talk without someone understanding or not understanding what was said.
And once again it's a question.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
That's what you said before you edited it.
But it matters not, you can't seem to make sense of it anyway.
Why not ask questions or not? Your privilege of course.
Edited by CMLink to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
well...i just want to say that i hope you guys can find a way to work through these misunderstandings
perhaps find a way to keep peace...and maybe even part in peace...all that jazz
i honestly dont know how to help without causing more trouble and misunderstanding
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
i'm peaceful-i think Goey is too-i hope he is
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
CM,
I am not gonna let you you weasel out that easily. ...
Here is your comment in it's full context.
I will point out that you addressed this line for line in your last post - with each line out the context in which you wrote it. Language does not work that way.
"Is that your Christ" has to refer to what was said before. It is not a question pulled from thin air.
"If you want to stay (remain) not understanding - fine" -- sets the context of the question. -- It says that you think that I do not understand - (which I have said is true)
"You aren't asking any questions" implies the reason that you believe that I will "stay" without understanding.
"Just ride off with that kind of comment" , seems to imply that I am turning my back on understanding - Just riding off ....
"Is that your Jesus?" is not just a simple question as you later tried to suggest. While aparantly rhetorical, it has far reaching implications when considered with the rest of what you wrote in the same paragraph. The term "your Jesus" itself has implications. It implies that there may be a "my Jesus" or a "his Jesus" or a "their Jesus".
Go ahead and weasel out if you want. No matter to me, I know what you said. It's either that or you should learn to write more plainly/cogently and avoid words with implications that you don't intend.
And for goodness sake CM , use some dad-gummed punctuation! Periods go after sentences. First word is capitalized ...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
Well...lol...glad you answered. And It was an attempt to have you see for yourself that not all understand Jesus Christ the same way not that it's a different Jesus Christ. Not saying "a different Jesus" like some sort of devil spirit like we were taught in the way. But to raise the point that you are the one pulling out without wanting to know more or even inquiring as to the content of the posts.
And there you go calling me a weasel. Whatever man. Why do you talk like that? I have not called you any names at all or put you down in anyway. I said you don't understand, and that is exactly what you said. Along with other unnecessary comments.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
I edited it to reflect what I intended to say. And within just a few minutes after as second proof read.
Even then I did not say what you think I did. My response was carefully worded in reply to Todds similar comment. May I suggest you go back and read it again in the full context of where I said it. Read what I actually wrote.
What I said was "Some things are simply nonsensical. Some things arent".
If you do construe this to mean that I am saying that Todd theories are nonsense, then you must also construe it to mean that they are not. It then becomes ambiguous does it not? I was talking generally about "some things". No more no less.
Edited by GoeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
CM
Perhaps you forgot the context.
So here is a look into what it means and that is what was being discussed was it not?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
I absolutely did not "call YOU a weasel".
"Weaseling out" is an expression like "crawfishing". It means you think they are backing out of something said or done . It does not mean you think they are either a crawfish or a weasel. It is a figure of speech.
Talking about monochromatic .............
Sheesh .....Uncle
And no. I did not just call you my uncle. It is an expression. A figure of speech that means "I give up".
Edited by GoeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
CM
Lol Goey...and I'm laughing with you not against you.
Peace
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
:)
Ok you lurkers. The "fight" is over now. You can go get your jollies on another thread.
Edited by GoeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
allan w.
Damn...wheres the next bi*ch fight happenin' ??
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
Beloved Todd
God loves you all
I hope its ok
Because my box is a lot like your Monochromatic faith
in about the way " The box I was once In"
thank you
with love and a holy kiss blowning your way Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
Roy...yeah, when i saw that thread you started, The Box I was once in "The Way Box", i saw it
it reminds me of how the spectrum of reality might unfold in a non-linear and non-flat way
but as a nesting sequence of wholes (boxes)
...alpha to omega...every whole being a part of an ever greater whole
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
Beloved Todd
God loves us my dear friend
I loved your pic
thank you
with love and a holy kiss blowing your way Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
glad you enjoyed Roy
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
Xena
At the risk of seeming "esoteric", I'd like to describe something I've been thinking about lately. It sorta fits with this Monochrome business.
You'll love this, Gooey, so I hope you will reconsider bowing out.
What if Monochrome-ism was in fact the Original Sin?
Think about it. Eve disobeyed when she ate of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. If she (representing humanity as a whole) had not "eaten" (representing digestion, assimilation, acceptance within herself) of the knowledge of good and evil (meaning the categorization of what is nice and what is not nice, or in other words the judgemental and exclusive Monochromatic perspective) ... then the world would be a different place.
On the other hand, if Eve (representing humanity as a whole) had only eaten (representing digestion, assimilation, acceptance within herself) from the tree of Life (representing the whole spectrum of possibilities, the 'rainbow" as discussed in this thread, the non-judgemental, all-inclusive, moment-by-moment view), then there would be no law, no sin, no need for Jesus to come to save us from our sin.
Well, it makes sense to me. Lots more sense than LCM's Lesbian snake theory !!
You see, without the black-and white, cut-and-dried, "knowledge of good and evil", Gooey's buddies from the Church of Christ would not be at odds with the Baptists, and Islam would not be at odds with Christianity, and the vegetarians would not be at odds with Burger King.
In Romans, it says "nothing is unclean of itself, but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean". Monochrome-ism is the constant designation of things and people and doctrines as clean or unclean. It's the knowledge of good and evil. Todd is suggesting that we move toward the Tree of Life instead.
-X
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
wow...xena
very interesting "what ifs"
like yer shootin off fireworks or sumthin
i think you've really kicked open some real interesting doors
and i really dig what you wrote about eve...and the trees
i think it would be good if we could find ways to set those timeless words free again
...free from all the old and new ways we've learned to drastically reduce their meaning (for some reason)
it pains me sometimes, to see how much we've done this kind of thing
and at the expense of some of the greatest and longest-lived contemplative practices of judeo-christianity
...especially considering how these same traditions were most likely the dominant spiritual forms in play during the writings of most all these scriptures we hold sacred today.
:blink:
and ok...why would we even want to argue against wanting to understand how things like rainbows and tonalities might apply even more deeply to interpreting and applying scriptures and life?
cuz biblically, scripturally...seriously, playfully...however you are with it...
...this book of books seems more than obviously dripping wet with color...from gen to rev
Eph 3:10
To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God
manifold= "much variegated...marked with a great variety of colours...of cloth or a painting "
this line seems to be pointing "off-screen" to some important aspects of this writer's more chromatic revelations
...details that were not included in Ephesians, for some reason
more...
1Pe 4:10
As every man hath received the gift
even so minister the same one to another
as good stewards of the manifold grace of God
interesting too, how manifold is also used referring to lusts, diseases, temptations
more...
Eph 4:3-10
Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.
measure=an instrument for measuring
- a vessel for receiving and determining the quantity of things, whether dry or liquid
- a graduated staff for measuring, a measuring rod
- proverbially, the rule or standard of judgment
- determined extent, portion measured off, measure or limit
- the required measure, the due, fit, measure
reminds me of the "ruler" we use to measure things like light and sound
and this is interesting, too:
Eph 4:13
Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ
Rev 21:17
And he measured the wall thereof, an hundred and forty and four cubits, according to the measure of a man, that is, of the angel.
hmm
so, what might that do to these...
Eph 5:8
For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light
Eph 5:13-14
But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light.
Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light.
Eph 5:19
Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs,
singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord
is it even possible to speak (or write or move) with any sense of "spiritual melody"
if one isnt first, at least, willing to wrap their heart/mind around the gist of spiritual harmony first?
why does it seem like we have forgotten (or maybe never knew) how all those sacred ideas behind "many-colored-dreamcoats" and "divine ladders" were NOT invented during the excesses of the 60s, NOR were they invented by 80s preachers in rainbow tights?
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
CM
hmmm...yeah Eve was deceived but Adam knew what he was doing
seems there is always someone or some thing trying to make things black and white
and still there are some who see more then 2 colors-which is kind of one
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Xena
Huh?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
Huh? What?
Eve-a tree to be desired. Only one purpose.
black and white
Adam ate for more then one reason.
Without Adam eating there would not be a Jesus Christ.
more then one color
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
cm, sounds kinda along the lines of what i'm trying to get at on the eros and agape thread
her...always meant to fall in agape
him..always meant to climb the erotic climb...starting in red
and we move from thesis...to anti-thesis...to synthesis
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
Sorry that I mocked you like that Xena=I'm stupid sometimes.
I also apologize to you Todd for doing it on this wonderful thread.
Seeing too much red I guess..lol..
Point is Eve ate of the tree
Adam ate of the tree
This could really be it's own thread, what you brought up Xena.
Cause the serpent said that they would be like Gods knowing good and evil.
Now does God know good and evil?
Reminds me of Danny's query into God the Creator vs God the Father.
Also where God is and has chosen to live.
The tree of knowledge of good and evil.
The tree of life.
Seems to me that they are both one and the same.
Both in the midst, or as one translation says, in the middle of the Garden.
Eve-black and white.
Black ...darkness. White ...all the colors in one is white.
Adam-seeing what had to be done did it and ate.
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.