Jesus didn't tap dance.
How do you tell the diff. between God talking to you and the little voices in your head?
How do you tell the diff. between God talking to you and the little voices in your head?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Catholic priest views on god.
- Thread starter Free Thinker
- Start date
Quote from Free Thinker:
and yet you twist those words to make it easier for you to comply. isnt it convienient when you allow yourself to decide what he ment to say. the words are pretty clear. do you think a supposedly all powerful all knowing god needs you to translate?
its no twist... its the Word.
Luke 18:22 When Jesus heard this, he said to him, "You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
"what a bunch of baloney."
Is baloney one of your legal terms?
" I did not realize you did not know the definition of law. "
There seem to be a lot of things you don't realize, like the fact that judges and courts don't make laws, they interpret, rule on matters of, provide legal opinions of laws brought before their courts.
They do not make the laws they review, they simply make a judgment on the proper way to exercise the existing law at hand.
Is baloney one of your legal terms?
" I did not realize you did not know the definition of law. "
There seem to be a lot of things you don't realize, like the fact that judges and courts don't make laws, they interpret, rule on matters of, provide legal opinions of laws brought before their courts.
They do not make the laws they review, they simply make a judgment on the proper way to exercise the existing law at hand.
Quote from jem:
what a bunch of baloney.
here is an different opinion also pulled from thin air.
liberals are typically losers who want something for nothing or wish to be elected by something for nothings. Since they are not willing to work hard to make something of their lives under the current societal structure and they are jealous of those who worked hard an have something... they agitate for a society in which they get more handouts. Their first goal is to strip the laws and constitutions out of society and then use govt to heavily "tax" the winners and give the money away to the large group of mostly lazy something for nothings.
Even though socialism has been shown to leave a much lower standard of living for all in just about every society which tried it, liberals are so jealous they would accept a lower standard of living for the themselves if they can knock others down to their level.
Many of them are also too ignorant to realize that the wealthy love the ideas of income taxes and other taxes because it means few if any people will ever be able to make businesses from scratch which will be competitive with their larger business.
The side effect of not have new winners is a society which dies.
Quote from OPTIONAL777:
... just an opinion, a ruling, and and interpretation of an existing law.
bingo.... I did not realize you did not know the definition of law.
Definition of LAW
1
a (1) : a binding custom or practice of a community : a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority (2) : the whole body of such customs, practices, or rules (3) : common law
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/law
Quote from OPTIONAL777:
"what a bunch of baloney."
Is baloney one of your legal terms?
" I did not realize you did not know the definition of law. "
There seem to be a lot of things you don't realize, like the fact that judges and courts don't make laws, they interpret, rule on matters of, provide legal opinions of laws brought before their courts.
They do not make the laws they review, they simply make a judgment on the proper way to exercise the existing law at hand.
777 said
.. just an opinion, a ruling, and and interpretation of an existing law.
Definition of LAW
1
a (1) : a binding custom or practice of a community : a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority (2) : the whole body of such customs, practices, or rules (3) : common law
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/law
Quote from Free Thinker:
that is not christianity according to jesus. that is paulianity according to paul.
its not Paul its quotes from Jesus.
do a search on eternal life and see what Jesus has to say about how it is granted.
here is my favorite... ironically it is perhaps the easiest think to do (the work being going to communion and discerning the body as we are told to do in corinthians), but the it takes the most faith...
"Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
Jhn 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day."
Quote from jem:
its not Paul its quotes from Jesus.
do a search on eternal life and see what Jesus has to say about how it is granted.
jesus never wrote anything down. paul never met jesus. paul hijacked whatever message jesus was trying to convey.
The Jesus Seminar is a group of academic theologians who study Christian writings from the 1st to 3rd century CE, from a religiously liberal perspective. They are composed of members with "Protestant, Catholic, Jewish and independent" backgrounds. 1 Their initial goal was to determine what Jesus really said. Their second goal was to describe what Jesus really did.
In the past, liberal and mainline religious academics have lectured, written articles in specialist journals, attended conferences and debated among themselves. They have taught generations of mainline and liberal divinity students. But their conclusions have rarely filtered down to the public.
"The public is poorly informed of the assured results of critical scholarship, although those results are commonly taught in colleges, universities and seminaries. In this vacuum, drugstore books and slick magazines play on the fears and ignorance of the uniformed." 2, Page 34
The Jesus Seminar attempts to elevate public knowledge of Christianity through its conferences, press releases, books, webpage, 1 etc. The goal is: "to bring the quest of the historical Jesus of Nazareth to the center of a global forum." 1 That is, to extract what the participants have concluded to be the actual words and actions of Jesus from ancient writings, and present these to the public.
Their conclusions differ greatly from what Christian denominations have historically taught. They are also in major conflict with the current beliefs of most present-day conservative Christians. Fellows of the Seminar do not regard Christian Scriptures as inerrant. They do not believe that the authors were uniquely inspired by God. Rather, they view the Bible as a very human document, composed by writers who actively promoted their own theological beliefs (or those of the group to which the writers belonged).
-------------------------------------------------------------
here its even easier for you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cK3Ry_icJo
Quote from Free Thinker:
jesus never wrote anything down. paul never met jesus. paul hijacked whatever message jesus was trying to convey.
The Jesus Seminar is a group of academic theologians who study Christian writings from the 1st to 3rd century CE, from a religiously liberal perspective. They are composed of members with "Protestant, Catholic, Jewish and independent" backgrounds. 1 Their initial goal was to determine what Jesus really said. Their second goal was to describe what Jesus really did.
In the past, liberal and mainline religious academics have lectured, written articles in specialist journals, attended conferences and debated among themselves. They have taught generations of mainline and liberal divinity students. But their conclusions have rarely filtered down to the public.
"The public is poorly informed of the assured results of critical scholarship, although those results are commonly taught in colleges, universities and seminaries. In this vacuum, drugstore books and slick magazines play on the fears and ignorance of the uniformed." 2, Page 34
The Jesus Seminar attempts to elevate public knowledge of Christianity through its conferences, press releases, books, webpage, 1 etc. The goal is: "to bring the quest of the historical Jesus of Nazareth to the center of a global forum." 1 That is, to extract what the participants have concluded to be the actual words and actions of Jesus from ancient writings, and present these to the public.
Their conclusions differ greatly from what Christian denominations have historically taught. They are also in major conflict with the current beliefs of most present-day conservative Christians. Fellows of the Seminar do not regard Christian Scriptures as inerrant. They do not believe that the authors were uniquely inspired by God. Rather, they view the Bible as a very human document, composed by writers who actively promoted their own theological beliefs (or those of the group to which the writers belonged).
The jesus seminar was big in the 80s. Crossan the lead guy is a media whore... and the concept of accepting statements only when they seem contrary to what the focus of the message is, is a poor take on the Federal Rules of Evidence. I used to go to lunch with someone who was well connected to the group. I know a lot about it. It was one of the reasons I choose to go to law school... they were a bunch of amateurs lawyers using amateur arguments, but I did not have the training to explain why.
After law school I resumed the discussion and pointed out what a bunch of garbage their points are.
But, as Bob Dylan says - you have to serve somebody.
I do place my faith in Jesus words in Matthew Mark Luke and John and in the prophecies of the old testament.
You may choose to serve someone or something else.
I have no problem with it.
Courts and judges do not make laws.
Their opinions are part of the body of law, the rule and customs, but they do not make the law. Their opinions influence the existing laws and the way in which they are interpreted and/or enforced...but they do not make laws.
The distinction between lawmakers and judges seems to be lost on you...
Fortunately our framers understood the need for the three branches of government and the different functions and check and balances they provide.
Their opinions are part of the body of law, the rule and customs, but they do not make the law. Their opinions influence the existing laws and the way in which they are interpreted and/or enforced...but they do not make laws.
The distinction between lawmakers and judges seems to be lost on you...
Fortunately our framers understood the need for the three branches of government and the different functions and check and balances they provide.
Quote from jem:
777 said
.. just an opinion, a ruling, and and interpretation of an existing law.
Definition of LAW
1
a (1) : a binding custom or practice of a community : a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority (2) : the whole body of such customs, practices, or rules (3) : common law
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/law