McCain Admits He Gave Dossier Containing "Sensitive Information" On Trump To The FBI

[fhl]

Therefore, the purpose of "following Jesus" is to ESCAPE HELL.

No, it's not.
The purpose of accepting Christ is to come into communion with God.

And hell is a place. That's what the bible teaches. Claiming that this world is hell because the devil is the ruler is making a monumental leap that does not exist.

The Jesus Seminar cranks have really distorted your thinking. And that's their goal.

They don't believe the bible and that is their starting point, not their ending point based on any 'analysis'.

They claim there is no such thing as the supernatural. So then they just start going through the bible and crossing out everything that is supernatural and say it doesn't belong in the bible. That is was just "made up".

Then, they claim there is no such thing as prophecy and that nobody can foretell the future. Then they just go through the bible and start crossing out the parts about prophesy. Because it was just 'made up'.

And that's how they finally come to the conclusion that only twenty percent of the bible is real. By starting out with that conclusion and making sure to end with it.

Anyone honest can see that they've just rewritten the bible. And then they claim that Christians rewrote it, without a scintilla of evidence.

Quite coincidentally, they think that there's nothing wrong with homosexuality, 'according to the bible'. Which may possibly give a great big giant hint as to the real underlying motives of the "Jesus Seminar". Because there's usually a motive.

They're nothing but unbelievers attempting to cast doubt. And looking for converts to their cause.

 

[stu]

God.. lol.

 

[Good1]

 

[Good1]

God.. lol.

This thread is about McCain.
Go back to nitro's "Is God deaf?".

 

[Good1]

the fundamental difference is you are expressing the eastern belief that you are God or can become God if you have the knowledge. Your view seems to be the gnosis in gnostic.

My views are the same views as Jesus. These views are much more nuanced, more accurate, and more effective than the major philosophies floating in the world when Jesus arrived for the last time. Did Jesus borrow ideas from any of these? Possibly. They may have inspired him to ask more questions. Or, he may have received his knowledge more directly, for example, from Christ. Or both.

It should be clear that Jesus expressed a contemporary "eastern belief that you are God, or can become God". He seemed to indicate that this was an open path for anyone who wished to follow. Where we differ is you are expressing western beliefs that this is impossible, and at best, can only apply to one man, Jesus.

In so doing, you split yourself off from a more "Eastern Orthodox" view regarding theosis, and/or "apotheosis", which is, or ought to be, the goal of every "Christian".

In so doing, you split yourself off from knowledge, of the sort that Jesus received. You seem to say that its ok that Jesus have/has/had gnosis, but the peasants must follow with faith, and faith alone?

As for similarities, i see that Judeo_Christian literature is very similar to Islam's
holy scripts.

I am concerned because its the very thing the serpent tempts eve with in the bible.

1.) The bible belongs to the devil, just as the Koran belongs to the devil.

Those Jews who knew the bible best, and traced their genealogy back to Adam, were described as "sons of satan", by your own nominal leader, Jesus (if we can believe any biblical record at all).

Point being, your bible bears witness against itself, and exhibits a theological split between Jesus and his views, and the bible thumping Jews and theirs.

In it's attempt to patch these discordant views together, the bible literally becomes an example of "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil", which is a metaphor for the fruit produced by forcing opposing concepts together into a single theology.

And yes, if you attempt to force opposites together, you will die, for reasons to be explained later.

Eating is a metaphor for believing.

So long as you believe you can force opposites together, such as forcing God to be a man, you are still eating of that very same tree, and dying from it.

Eat of this tree and you will have the knowledge, you will be God.

Are you implying knowledge is a bad thing, as if it were evil?

Here then is an example of forcing good to be evil, and evil to be good.

At this point, you have no clue what is good or evil, having no knowledge whatsoever.

From a philosophical point of view, you have only two choices. You can have,

1.) knowledge
or,
2.) faith

That's it! There are no other options.

Furthermore, these are exclusive. You have knowledge or you have faith. You can't have both. More about that later.

You agree that God has knowledge.

You seem to say God would never give that knowledge to anyone, or anything else.

That leaves man with faith, as if faith was God-given.

Not only does this insult intelligence, it insults any God that is actually good.

Because...

Faith is a prison bordered by bars of ignorance.

If faith is not knowledge, then faith is ignorance, parading as knowledge.

It is not the knowledge, but rather, the pretense of knowledge that is killing all believers.

The story of the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" is a parable.

Like all parables, it is only as good as the mind that groks the knowledge contained therein.

All parables are open to interpretation.

Why have you chosen to go against knowledge, and believe the snake in the story?

In a way its what the devil tempted Jesus with in the Desert and while on the Cross.
Jesus told us you not to play along with that game. It was not even God's will for Jesus.

The "devil", did, and still does, tempt YOU, and not just Jesus, to glorify all that is not God.

Christians glorify faith, even though God knows everything, and therefore believes nothing.

Faith is not a quality of God, and yet, Christians glorify it.

This is an example of the temptation you speak of.

Another example is the effort to glorify the condition(s) of man, while still retaining the essential qualities that make man what man is.

So, Christians expect to resurrect to a glorified body. Such a body, could, presumably, jump off a high tower and survive the fall. After all, such a body would be immune to death.

Another example, there are many, if not the majority of Christians believing in some sort of world domination. This echoes the temptation for Jesus to be given all the great cities of the world...if only he would bow down to the devil.

So it is you, the Christians, who are still falling for these temptations...you and many other faith systems falling under the banner "spiritual".

On the other hand, i am not interested in a better body, a glorified body, a death defying body, or ownership of all the great cities of the world. I'm not interested in gaining even the whole world. I am not interested in remaining captive in a prison of faith.

I have hope that via Gods grace I can be with him outside of time. I can find him in the Light and at Communion but I am not him.

Clue:

No man can see the face of God and live.

Another clue:

The only thing that can see God, is God, seen not with eyes of faith, but with a mind full of KNOWLEDGE.

This is why Jesus has asked you to lay down your life, for Christ's sake.

Salvation is very much about who you think you are. To miss this, you are missing the whole point.

Hell accommodates the personification of foolishness, for any prodigal thought process that thinks it can leave the Kingdom of God, and be/become something/somebody else.

I think therefore I am - but not I AM.

So here is an example of how man aims to appropriate terms, qualities and condition that belong only to Christ.

I'm sure there are other gods who say to themselves, "I am", going against the truth:

There are no other gods besides Christ.

I'm sure there are other people who say to themselves, "I am", going against the truth:

There is no Greek, Jew, man, woman, slave or free in Christ.

In other words, you do not exist.

If you insist you do, you will die.

 

[jem]

thanks... I will reply in depth later. I have a lot of work today.

I don't think this was a message about all Jews and the bible. But the Jews who were the sons of satan were the jewish leaders who were going to put Jesus to the Cross. Not all jews as jesus and his disciples were jewish.

In another passage Jesus lets us know - those jews that would put mans laws in between God and his word were a brood of vipers. (was the devil a viper in the garden?) You might argue the Pharisees were the originators of the Talmud. Which is a bunch of rules that do seem to come between God and God's word the bible.

 

[Good1]

No, it's not.
The purpose of accepting Christ is to come into communion with God.

Escaping hell and communion with God are the same thing...and these are the same as APOTHEOSIS (to borrow a term from jem's lexicon).

People will think of almost any excuse, to STAY in hell.

And hell is a place. That's what the bible teaches. Claiming that this world is hell because the devil is the ruler is making a monumental leap that does not exist.

This world is a place.

You just said hell is a place, and i would agree.

You seem to think these places are real, and i don't agree.

Heaven is not a place.

Anything that can be a place is hell.

All places are prisons, bordered by bars of faith (ignorance) masquerading as freedom.

The Jesus Seminar cranks have really distorted your thinking. And that's their goal.

As ive said, i am not a member, and their ideas have had no influence on mine. I was simply pointing out to Jem that there are people close to your own definition of Christianity, that parse out everything they say Jesus said, and give it a weight of confidence.

The alternative is to swallow, whole, the fruit that comes from combining the opposite qualities of good and evil into a single book, single tree, single faith system.

While they may be Christians, i am not.

They don't believe the bible and that is their starting point, not their ending point based on any 'analysis'.

As long as there is even one parable in the bible, you can never say the bible is something you can entirely believe. You don't need to be a philosopher to realize that parables are neither true, nor false. Parables are teaching devices. Parables are not for believing; they are for UNDERSTANDING.

There are many parables in the bible. Some might say Jesus taught mainly through parables. Not a single parable can be, nor ought to be believed.

Until you can understand the difference between parables and scientific white papers, you will not understand.

They claim there is no such thing as the supernatural. So then they just start going through the bible and crossing out everything that is supernatural and say it doesn't belong in the bible. That is was just "made up".

Maybe they think the supernatural events are parables?

Do you really think some men almost built a tower reaching to heaven, only to having it struck down?

Then, they claim there is no such thing as prophecy and that nobody can foretell the future. Then they just go through the bible and start crossing out the parts about prophesy. Because it was just 'made up'.

While there may be such thing as telling the future, there are no references to Jesus, by name, by description, or by mission, embedded within Jewish literature. They are right to admit this, rather than FORCE the square pegs into the round holes.

To understand why the bible is associated with Jesus at all you have to understand who he was talking to (mainly Jews), in terms they were familiar with. The Torah was to Jews in those days what MOVIES and other main stream media are to us today.

I can take any popular movie that most people are familiar with, and expropriate aspects of the story-line to create a parable that points to the Kingdom of God, or talks about hell. I can borrow from the movie "The Matrix" all day long. Oh, you say "The Matrix" is not true? Well, the bible is not true either, but a good teacher can reach into it and pull out salient samples to make a point.

So, for example, the hypocritical religious leaders asked Jesus for a "sign", and he said, the only sign those corrupt people would be given was "the sign of Jonah". Does this mean the story of Jonah is more than a parable? No. It just means that if you are familiar with the story of Jonah, you might understand that Jesus was ESCAPING HELL, or, the proverbial "belly of the whale".

These references, taught by a teacher who used mainly parables to teach, are not outright endorsements of the entire book as scientific white paper. Likewise, re-tweets on Twitter do not endorse a tweeters entire library of tweets.

Jesus was more likely to CHANGE the reading/meaning of anything in the bible as he was to endorse it. Given ten commandments, for example, he might reduce them to one, plus one new one of his own.

How is this different from what the Jesus Seminar people do?

And that's how they finally come to the conclusion that only twenty percent of the bible is real. By starting out with that conclusion and making sure to end with it.

Yes, it's called a framework. You have a framework too.

You underestimate just how much of the bible is a parable, which can neither be true nor false.

You underestimate just how much of the "new testament" is an INTERPRETATION fraught with embellishment.

Speaking of embellishments, it says they brought Jesus in front of the Sanhedrin on the night before he was crucified. After which he was brought before the throne of Herod at some ungodly hour of the night.

Anyone honest can see that they've just rewritten the bible. And then they claim that Christians rewrote it, without a scintilla of evidence.

It depends on how much of the bible you consider to be parable. Christians simply take parables and interpret them as to fit their preferred paradigm. Keep doing this and you will go blind, not understanding the difference between parables and reality...the blind leading the blind.

Generally, a group of old Christians, with pointed hats, collected a library of books together to suit their 3rd century agenda. That's your bible.

Quite coincidentally, they think that there's nothing wrong with homosexuality, 'according to the bible'. Which may possibly give a great big giant hint as to the real underlying motives of the "Jesus Seminar". Because there's usually a motive.

You should probably cite your sources.

The same group that gave you the bible (as a collection of third century manuscripts) has had a big problem with pedophilia, even homosexual pedophilia...as if there was nothing wrong with it.

You can certainly get a homosexuality-is-sin viewpoint from Jewish literature, and Pauline literature...from Saul, the former Pharisee.

Again, you misunderstand just how much of the bible is parable. Homosexuality is to human sexuality what human sexuality is to Christ. Given homosexuality, you would have no human race. Given human sexuality, you would have NO CHRIST. Given humans, Christ would have to "die".

They're nothing but unbelievers attempting to cast doubt. And looking for converts to their cause.

This is my view of Christians and Christianity.

 

[Good1]

This looks like the christian church that John McCain goes to.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

I'm guessing they are very proud of their diversity, tolerance and devotion to social justice.

 

[fhl]

Escaping hell and communion with God are the same thing...and these are the same as APOTHEOSIS (to borrow a term from jem's lexicon).

People will think of almost any excuse, to STAY in hell.



This world is a place.

You just said hell is a place, and i would agree.

You seem to think these places are real, and i don't agree.

Heaven is not a place.

Anything that can be a place is hell.

All places are prisons, bordered by bars of faith (ignorance) masquerading as freedom.



As ive said, i am not a member, and their ideas have had no influence on mine. I was simply pointing out to Jem that there are people close to your own definition of Christianity, that parse out everything they say Jesus said, and give it a weight of confidence.

The alternative is to swallow, whole, the fruit that comes from combining the opposite qualities of good and evil into a single book, single tree, single faith system.

While they may be Christians, i am not.



As long as there is even one parable in the bible, you can never say the bible is something you can entirely believe. You don't need to be a philosopher to realize that parables are neither true, nor false. Parables are teaching devices. Parables are not for believing; they are for UNDERSTANDING.

There are many parables in the bible. Some might say Jesus taught mainly through parables. Not a single parable can be, nor ought to be believed.

Until you can understand the difference between parables and scientific white papers, you will not understand.



Maybe they think the supernatural events are parables?

Do you really think some men almost built a tower reaching to heaven, only to having it struck down?



While there may be such thing as telling the future, there are no references to Jesus, by name, by description, or by mission, embedded within Jewish literature. They are right to admit this, rather than FORCE the square pegs into the round holes.

To understand why the bible is associated with Jesus at all you have to understand who he was talking to (mainly Jews), in terms they were familiar with. The Torah was to Jews in those days what MOVIES and other main stream media are to us today.

I can take any popular movie that most people are familiar with, and expropriate aspects of the story-line to create a parable that points to the Kingdom of God, or talks about hell. I can borrow from the movie "The Matrix" all day long. Oh, you say "The Matrix" is not true? Well, the bible is not true either, but a good teacher can reach into it and pull out salient samples to make a point.

So, for example, the hypocritical religious leaders asked Jesus for a "sign", and he said, the only sign those corrupt people would be given was "the sign of Jonah". Does this mean the story of Jonah is more than a parable? No. It just means that if you are familiar with the story of Jonah, you might understand that Jesus was ESCAPING HELL, or, the proverbial "belly of the whale".

These references, taught by a teacher who used mainly parables to teach, are not outright endorsements of the entire book as scientific white paper. Likewise, re-tweets on Twitter do not endorse a tweeters entire library of tweets.

Jesus was more likely to CHANGE the reading/meaning of anything in the bible as he was to endorse it. Given ten commandments, for example, he might reduce them to one, plus one new one of his own.

How is this different from what the Jesus Seminar people do?




Yes, it's called a framework. You have a framework too.

You underestimate just how much of the bible is a parable, which can neither be true nor false.

You underestimate just how much of the "new testament" is an INTERPRETATION fraught with embellishment.

Speaking of embellishments, it says they brought Jesus in front of the Sanhedrin on the night before he was crucified. After which he was brought before the throne of Herod at some ungodly hour of the night.



It depends on how much of the bible you consider to be parable. Christians simply take parables and interpret them as to fit their preferred paradigm. Keep doing this and you will go blind, not understanding the difference between parables and reality...the blind leading the blind.

Generally, a group of old Christians, with pointed hats, collected a library of books together to suit their 3rd century agenda. That's your bible.



You should probably cite your sources.

The same group that gave you the bible (as a collection of third century manuscripts) has had a big problem with pedophilia, even homosexual pedophilia...as if there was nothing wrong with it.

You can certainly get a homosexuality-is-sin viewpoint from Jewish literature, and Pauline literature...from Saul, the former Pharisee.

Again, you misunderstand just how much of the bible is parable. Homosexuality is to human sexuality what human sexuality is to Christ. Given homosexuality, you would have no human race. Given human sexuality, you would have NO CHRIST. Given humans, Christ would have to "die".



This is my view of Christians and Christianity.

You have so many different points that it would take too much time to go through them one by one. So let's just summarize it as you're trying to tell me that every single thing in the bible that has anything to do with the supernatural is a parable and all Christians throughout history are just too stupid to realize it. Jesus fed the five thousand. Parable. Raised a child from the dead. Parable. And on and on until there is literally only, what you say, 5% of the bible that is true and not a story made up for instruction.
It really only confirms what I stated in my previous post. That the JS people, and you, don't believe in the supernatural, and you consider anyone who does to be an ignorant dolt.

The biggest problem with your take is that it doesn't just leave you with a book of how a 'good man' taught some 'good principals', which is what so many wish to reduce it to. It renders the bible completely meaningless and paradoxical.
There is no point at all to beginning the bible with the law, and then completing the bible with Jesus the sacrificial lamb, if there is no such thing as the supernatural. It unmistakably teaches that a set of guidelines and principals for living has no power at all to change anything. (that's the law) And that the supernatural is necessary for change to take place. (that's grace resulting from the sacrifice of the lamb of God)

You've stated that Jesus taught that his two commandments fulfilled the previous ten, yet you haven't quite caught on that without the virgin birth and the death and resurrection of Jesus, there isn't even a point to having a new covenant. The old covenant would have saved, according to your new interpretation, but the bible teaches quite clearly, even if you parabalize everything, that it couldn't. Your interpretation would have us believe that the bible teaches that while the law couldn't bring us into right relationship with God, summarizing the law into two shorter commandments really gets the job done for mankind. It's no wonder that all Christians throughout history haven't accepted that kind of interpretation, because it renders the bible ridiculous.

I only wish that the doubters would use the same meticulous effort to try to cast doubt on 'settled science' that they do with the bible.
I mean the modern definition of science requires things like a cause, but even being without anything resembling a cause we're constantly bombarded with the so called science of the beginning of the universe.
And then there's the settled science of evolution, even thought scientists have made it crystal clear that there is quite literally nothing that would falsify this theory, omitting another of the required tenets of the modern definition of science.

In terms of making up things to suit a belief, Christians have nothing at all on scientists.