Why did God......

Quote from oddiduro:

1co 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
More...

This is likely the truest thing Paul ever said.
It is defeated, unfortunately, as Paul speaks out of both sides of his mouth in support of the gOd of confusion.
The gOd of confusion is the gOd of time, the gOd of this world.
The gOd of this world is the gOd of biblical genesis lore.
The gOd of this world makes this world, beginning with confusion.
The gOd of this world is the master of confusion.
It's impossible to serve two masters.
It's impossible to serve the TruE GoD and the false gOd together.
This Paul did, and this everybody does who follows Paul's legacy.

Christ!
 
Quote from oddiduro:

It would appear that the faithful are unwilling to address the topic, besides Iam, who in my simple mind appears to be buddist.
More...

Think of me as Buddha on steroids. :D
Beyond Buddha is Christ.
Gautama found the path that leads to Christ...the totality of everything.

For example:
The world is maya [illusion].
The world [maya] begins upon ignorance.
All form is empty.
Desire for maya leads to all suffering.
Detachment from maya leads to bliss.
Detachment from thought detaches from maya.


Gautama paused one step short.
Gautama paused at the totality of time, so-to-speak.
Guatama identified with the mind that makes time.
The mind that makes time is outside of time.
The mind that makes time is thought to be the totality.
It is not.
It mimics eternal attributes.
The mind that makes time is not in favor of the totality.
That mind must vote against itself in order that the totality be experienced.
Guatama reincarnated one more time, and picked up where he left off, following through with ease.
Guatama laid down the "liFe" of the mind that makes time, and chose the totality instead.
To choose the true totality is the resurrection.

When one identifies with the mind that makes time, he is really identifying with "Christ crucified".
This is a necessary step.
After this step is identification with Christ "risen".
To identify with Christ risen, is to identify with Christ as Christ is.
However Christ is, that is what the true Christian wants to identify with.
However, in the post-Paul confusion, not one christian will identify either with Christ crucified, or with Christ risen.
So, it is kind of like running around in circles, chasing one's tail.
It's not going anywhere.
There is no exodus of time for the wage earners of confusion.
Only the truth will set anybody free from cyclical existence.

Christ!
 
Quote from oddiduro:

I am looking for a Christian to step up to the plate and present a plausible explanation for a glaring contradiction.
More...


Can't happen for anyone who inherits and cherishes the legacy of Paul. Not possible to present a plausible explanation for confusion from within the confusion. Paul's theology was a mix, attempting to reconcile what he had heard about Jesus, with his own idea of what gOd is or ought to be. Paul was a student of the school of Pharisee, whose tradition is based on the gOd of biblical genesis. And this tradition infiltrated Paul's mental filters, coloring everything he touched. Paul touched gold...turning it into stone, so-to-speak.

The *Our Father* of Jesus is nOt the same as the gOd of biblical genesis.
This is why biblical genesis is confusing, and also why judeo-christianity is confusing.
It supports the author of confusion.
It denys the author of clarity.

Christ!
 
Quote from oddiduro:



I am looking for a Christian to step up to the plate and present a plausible explanation for a glaring contradiction.
More...

I am at the plate, what is it you want to argue about ?
 
Quote from Barth Vader:

I am at the plate, what is it you want to argue about ?
More...

:D

So far, I have tried to argue. All I get from Oddi are opinions. Somehow, he has elevated his own beliefs to the level of divinity.

If Oddi speaks, then it must be true and therefore everyone else must be wrong.

Classical skeptic - has no idea where he came from or where he is going, or why he is here, or what will happen next year, has little clue about the nature of the cosmos the meaning of life or much of anything else, cannot really explain much, but can still make bold fundamental pronouncements based on their miniscule, brief, insignificant life experience. And of course, anyone challenging them are misguided myth-holders.

I especially love those skeptics who are "men of science" who usually do not know much about science in the first place. I have a strong science background. When I ask serious questions about their science knowledge, they usually have little solid to say. So they return to more opinions (or insults - which usually indicate they haven't a clue but it somehow makes them feel better.)
 

  • Quote from oddiduro:
  • I am looking for a Christian to step up to the plate and present a plausible explanation for a glaring contradiction.


Quote from Barth Vader:

I am at the plate, what is it you want to argue about ?
More...
More...

You're at the plate and didn't see the first pitch... ?

The account of something called original sin in Genesis is not plausible. It is contradictory for reasons already given in the thread. It ticks all the boxes that folk lore and fairy stories do. To bring it out of the realm of fantasy tale into something more reasonable and valid , can you
"...present a plausible explanation for a glaring contradiction. "
or is it going to be steerike 2 ?

TZ has adequately demonstrated he can't manage it . His only answer is to blame anyone for everything under the sun because he obviously can't present that plausible explanation.
 
Quote from TraderZones:

:D

So far, I have tried to argue. All I get from Oddi are opinions. Somehow, he has elevated his own beliefs to the level of divinity.

If Oddi speaks, then it must be true and therefore everyone else must be wrong.

Classical skeptic - has no idea where he came from or where he is going, or why he is here, or what will happen next year, has little clue about the nature of the cosmos the meaning of life or much of anything else, cannot really explain much, but can still make bold fundamental pronouncements based on their miniscule, brief, insignificant life experience. And of course, anyone challenging them are misguided myth-holders.

I especially love those skeptics who are "men of science" who usually do not know much about science in the first place. I have a strong science background. When I ask serious questions about their science knowledge, they usually have little solid to say. So they return to more opinions (or insults - which usually indicate they haven't a clue but it somehow makes them feel better.)
More...

Sir, I merely asked for a clarification of a story that makes no sense to my little sense of logic. You, upon even the most cursory review of the thread became verbally aggressive and combative.

And you still did not answer the question. It was not a knuckler or a curve, it was a fastball right down the middle, just waiting for you to hit it out the park.

I will pitch the same pitch to your teammate.

God puts two humans made in his image into a garden. He puts a tree there and warns them not to eat from it. He is all knowing.
So, he knew that they would eat from it. If he loves them so, why put the tree there in the first place, unless he were setting them up to fail, or there is an error in the storyline?

In our primitive legal system this could be considered entrapment.
Since God has a history of being easily offended, I would imagine that he would have eradicated someone for libel, if this story is not true. If the story is true, then I need to be coached by one of the faithful as to logic of this process. The logic should be understandable even to a simple mind like mine, since we are all made in his image and He is not the author of confusion.

I simply ask a direct question from the faithful. As yet, no one has provided a direct answer.
 
Quote from I am...:

Can't happen for anyone who inherits and cherishes the legacy of Paul. Not possible to present a plausible explanation for confusion from within the confusion. Paul's theology was a mix, attempting to reconcile what he had heard about Jesus, with his own idea of what gOd is or ought to be. Paul was a student of the school of Pharisee, whose tradition is based on the gOd of biblical genesis. And this tradition infiltrated Paul's mental filters, coloring everything he touched. Paul touched gold...turning it into stone, so-to-speak.

The *Our Father* of Jesus is nOt the same as the gOd of biblical genesis.
This is why biblical genesis is confusing, and also why judeo-christianity is confusing.
It supports the author of confusion.
It denys the author of clarity.

Christ!
More...

Are you saying that Paul put words in Jesus' mouth?
 
Haven’t visited these boards for a couple of weeks and it’s still the same.

Last Thanksgiving I overheard a child ask his Grandmother why she made so much mashed potatoes? She replied," because I wanted too".

God asked Job “ Where you there when I laid the foundations of the Earth?”

When Moses asked God his name, God replied “ I AM THAT I AM“.

You with the knowledge that is a speck compared to the omniscience of God, want to argue and debate his reasons?

You would be better served to fall on your faces and ask for His mercy and grace.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top