God and the blind Tailors

OK I did it.; {>See it doesn't work I tried it and every combination what gives? I post on umm' eight boards this is the only one I have this problem on. Edited by RevCrossHugger, : No reason given.

Test (again) reply button..See same thing... I am using a firefox browser....thats all... I give up ....I was going to manually type in the name of the member but I received so many replies that its too time consuming...; {>Edited by RevCrossHugger, : No reason given.

It seems to have worked to me. I have you listed as responding to my post 14, and below you responded to purpledawn's post 10. You're doing fine. Have faith.Edited by lyx2no, : Add "dig" title.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.

Oh in the other forums when I use the reply function quote tags are automatically placed around the block of font.Then when its posted the reply reads like ;Post By So and So ...I see nothing in the reply space. Oh well...If it helps, I will do it every time.; {>Edited by RevCrossHugger, : No reason given.Edited by RevCrossHugger, : No reason given.

Yeah! And that gets to be a real mess. Here you won't be repeating the entire message that you're responding to in the reply space. The post you wish to reply to will show below the reply space, and you can cut and paste from there. Only quoting the bits you actually want to respond to is much tidier.Try this: [qs=RCH] Oh in the other forums when I use the reply function quote tags are automatically placed around the block of font.[/qs] and you get what I got above. Also take note that admin has directed you to some helpful spots.But yes, keep using the "reply". It does help. ThanksEdited by lyx2no, : More info.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added link to my "bump" at a "Practice Makes Perfect" topic.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.

Thank you for the exchange rev.
Hope things are good with you ... Let's hope so ... The position of open theism exploits more about the nature of time and reality than it does about the Father Himself. I'm sure your familiar with Boyd's perspective. In orthodox christian circles it's usually referred to as 'wussin out', as opposed to liberal theism. Again, in that context, I would suggest it as simply exiting Babylon. You have one foot in the door perhaps?Remember Lot's wife ... C'mon rev, that's not entirely true or you wouldn't be here with everybody savin' souls now, would you? Ok. What would that have to do with the ultimate reduction of religion? My point was that religion is more than simply assigning attributes to a Deity.It involves life.It involves love.It involves family.It involves politics.It involves traditions.It involves corruption.It involves civilizations.It involves much more than you wish to reduce it to. There is plenty of bandwidth. Perhaps, the limitations of discipline and reality are demanding brevity ...Possibly even intellect, though it seems most polite to always offer the benefit of doubt. Nice. 'Why be serious or address various issues directly, when I can amuse myself?' ... Is this what you are saying more or less?I have enough material thanks. Additionally, we wouldn't want anyone to mistake us for one another now, would we? Although that would seem to be your first display of humility, what would your proof for such an assertion be?Chapter and verse, perhaps ... or more fancy gibberish? I would have to second oni in Message 3 and suggest that arrogance makes sure of that. If religion didn't propose to hold so much on the line, perhaps practitioners would not behave so rashly. Certainly it is not natural, is it? I mean, if so, would we not all be born with bibles and an easy to read thumping manual? What does this ambiguous beauty mean?Are you suggesting that the twelve disciples of Yeshua HaMashiach were evil or that all subsequent religious leaders are inherently evil?If so, I call bullshit. What is your evidence? No, you probably cannot and should not attempt to speak for other religions, much less Red Letter chrisitianity, until you can figure out your own. Granted, you appear to have picked the right board to temper your precious metals. Nonetheless, the evasive and belittling tactics you choose to employ seem to effectively expose any threat of Red Letter christianity you may supposedly possess, and so, you have calmed my oceans.Try being genuine or sincere. Perhaps you'll wind up an authentic Red Letter Anointed One by accident. One can hope ... You're no heretic, that's for sure ... I'd have to say that may be the only way I could easily come to like you. Here's to walking the talk ...[cheers]This gets back to disunity amongst traditions which you seem to have conveniently avoided, apparently citing that topic as a personal attack in Message 13. Whatever. I probably should not realistically expect less from a self proclaimed christian, considering the only three biblical mentions towards christians were not self identifying.Yet, again, I enjoy giving the benefit of the doubt or I'd be at a fundie board gettin' my ears tickled. For example, if it wasn't for the counter weight of the blind watchmaker's in our reality, your friends in seminary and yourself may have blown each other up or declared war on each other years ago.I'm just sayin' ... be thankful in all things rev. lol - wtf? Rev, I'm attempting to enter into some dialogue with you in a language you supposedly understand. It was your metaphor and my response followed reasonably enough for you to digress into an appeal of emotion. This appears to suggest, quite simply, that either you are not as mentally prepared as one may hope or that you do not have a firm grip on the language you are choosing to communicate in. Kinda pampered it would seem for a supposed hillbilly redneck, but I still luv ya!Again, there were no personal remarks. You have soft skin is all.For example, what is there to be identified as personally malicious in the comments that I extracted from Message 8 which now appear below ...

quote:

---

1) Can our variant perceptions of cut and style consistently align with an established standard preference?

​

2) If so, why so much disunity among the variant traditions associated to christian dogmas & doctrines, rather than a disciplined, uniform standard?

---

The answer = nothing. Yet, you appeal to emotion in light of difficult and challenging issues. Fascinating.I could, perhaps, come to understand how you may come to take the additional comment to heart ...

quote:

---

3) Lemme take a gander here ...

​

Designing suits is more proftable than wearing them?

---

If, say, you were indeed guilty of the charge. Yet, again, I'd rather give you the benefit of the doubt here.But you gotta stop actin' so guilty bro - lol Congrats. I'm sure the Anointed One, Yeshua, would be thrilled by your ability to mock others in a public forum.If you muster up some piety, perhaps we can tarry on back towards progressive dialogue.Until then ... I'll leave my short comings exposed to all those who can see past the surface. Ah, thank you indeed rev. You have contributed, at least, even if in a small way.You know what they say sir - don't despise the days of small beginnings.On that note, I digress friend ... enjoy.One Love

I will use the reply function from now on and thanks so much for the assistance.;}>Oh something i just discovered! I used the peek (I thought it was a quick preview)just now and the codes for tags were exposed. So that has helped more than anything!; {>Edited by RevCrossHugger, : No reason given.

quote:

---

My point was that religion is more than simply assigning attributes to a Deity.

​

It involves life.
It involves love.
It involves family.
It involves politics.
It involves traditions.
It involves corruption.
It involves civilizations.
It involves much more than you wish to reduce it to.

---

It also includes the surrounding physical environment besides political environment. That's why I feel a religion is made to fit the region, not so much a creator of everything. When religions began, people only knew of their own environment.For the most part, those raised with a specific religion will feel that religion fits their needs better than another when they decide to embrace a religion because of all the things you listed above.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

Granny Magda writes:

​

Seriously though, Christianity seems an odd choice for someone of this opinion. The Bible is not just explicitly monotheistic, but jealously, even violently so. It even goes so far as to demand the slaughter of heretical believers. Some believers have been only too happy to oblige.

​

This seems like a strange attitude for a single-yet-plural god such as the one you describe.

​

I'm sure that you will seek to explain this by reference to human failure to properly understand God's message. My problem is that if the Bible authors could get something as important as this so horribly, horribly wrong, why should we listen to them at all?

​

The authors got nothing wrong. The main message is that you must believe in God. Secondly the message is that you should accept Jesus Christ as a Christian and repent. Those two messages have made it, so the authors have done their job.

---

And you made it through seminary, you say. Interesting.I agree the writers weren't necessarily wrong. I would say that dogma or tradition is wrong. The authors wrote for a specific audience in their own time. They didn't write to become part of a Holy Book or to support other writers.The message of the OT is not that one must believe in the Hebrew God. The message was that if the Hebrews followed God's commands, he would be their god, all would go well and he would protect them from their enemies.The NT message is not that one should accept Jesus as a Christian and repent. The message from Jesus to the Jews (Judaism) was to repent. Paul's message to the Greeks (Christians) was to repent. Nothing say that one should accept Jesus as a Christian.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

Obviously... And all claim intellectual property rights to God. Maybe... No way of knowing for sure. We're just as ill-equipped to answer that question now as when it was first asked thousands of years ago. No, that makes no sense. You just said we all worship the same God and that different religions are trying to assign their own interpreted attributes. Then you conclude by saying that you're version of God and your version of religion is correct. That makes you different from every other zealot, how?So much for the unbiased objectivity.I should also add that your tailor analogy smacks of paganism. Is God a Mr. Potato Head where each person's artistic side can fashion the God of their choice with all the attributes that suit them? Isn't that, well, blasphemous?Forgive the bluntness, but it sounds like it's more about you and less about God. That happens often as it turns in to the Pharisee Effect, where they start out with good intentions. Somewhere along the way God becomes a vehicle for them to enact their own will, all the while pretending it is a mandate from God.Happens all the time in every monotheistic religion. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.Edited by Hyroglyphx, : Edit to ABE

---

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

Actually, RCH, there's a rather valid point within that mild ridicule.What makes you think your "suit" is better than any others? Without any objective evidence, any choice you make is completely arbitrary. Can you prove that your concept of God is more accurate than the Swimming Potato Monster? The SPM may sound absurd, but I guarantee you that, depending on cultural context, the Christian "invisible man in the sky" deity can sound just as ridiculous. This is why the appeal to personal incredulity is a logical fallacy - just because you personally think that something sounds preposterous doesn't necessarily mean that it isn't true. There was a time, after all, when heliocentrism or the idea of a round Earth would have been (and indeed, were) met with ridicule and accusations of blasphemy.As far as hate speech...that's not an accusation you should throw around so lightly. Saying "I think your beliefs are nonsense" is not hate speech, even when it's phrased in a way you find personally insulting. Personally, I find all of Christianity to be offensive - after all, the Bible specifically condemns me to an eternity of suffering for the simple crime of lacking belief.This isn't a forum where flaming is tolerated. Arguments including absurd-sounding metaphors are allowed because they are a legitimate part of debate; dismissals of others arguments without rebuttals or evidence, and with accusations that another poster is a "little boy," are frowned upon at best. You've done nothing with such accusations to promote your argument, and have rather completely failed to address another person's point because you didn't like it.Boo hoo. Sometimes, you'll meet arguments you don't personally like. Crying about them and using ignore buttons doesn't qualify as a rebuttal, and suggests that your argument may be somewhat weaker than you believe if you're unable to respond to someone you've characterized as a child.But back to your initial argument - what makes you think a deity (or a "model" in your metaphor) exists at all?You;ve suggested that the Bible is a decent source of information, but you've simultaneously claimed that the Bible is not a science or history book while also claiming that the Bible is being verified by archeology. Which part? The Exodus that has absolutely zero extrabiblical evidence to support it, with not even a mention of the plagues of Egypt or Hebrew slaves, or any evidence of a nomadic Hebrew group wandering the area for 40 years in the numbers recorded in the Bible? Genesis, with its claims of 6-day Creation that wholly contradict science at every stage of the story, or the great Flood that magically left behind absolutely no evidence of ever having happened? The conquest of Canaan that nobody can find any evidence supporting?If the Bible is neither a science nor a history book, then how can you use it as supporting evidence that your concept of God is more accurate than others? How does one book of metaphors, poetry, and parables become judged as superior to other similar religious texts in characterizing a deity?How do texts filled with metaphor and parable that are not accurate historically or scientifically support the existence of any deity at all?You also referred to "fulfilled prophesy." That's a topic we've gone over here at EvC many times. What prophesies from teh Bible do you believe have been fulfilled? Would you agree that, to qualify as evidence that supernatural predictions have occurred, any prophesy must be sufficiently unambiguous as to allow foresight as opposed to only fitting an event after-the fact, that teh prophesy must be fulfilled independently of the source (Making a prophesy in Harry potter book 1 and then fulfilling it in book 7, for instance, cannot qualify), and that the event fulfilling the prophesy must be independently verified? What prophesies from the Bible do you think meet these requirements? What differentiates the prophesies of the Bible from prophesies from other religions, or even from works of fiction?I see something rather different than a model being fitted for a new suit. Rather, I see a large group of student tailors, all absolutely convinced that there is a model, but who are unable to objectively support any of his measurements, and cannot say exactly why they believe there is a model at all. They all continue to make their suits, and each insists that their suit is superior to the others, but to an outside observer it appears that all of the measurements are arbitrary and pulled from the imaginations and expectations of the tailor rather than any measurement from a real model...and the model himself is nowhere to be seen.

Obviously this is a false premise as some many people do not believe in the supernatural.

Thank you for the exchange purpledawn ...
Hope things are well with you and yours. Your insights are very appreciated purpledawn and I agree many traditions do not stress or even involve creator theories. Religions are indeed as diverse as the languages spoken, the music made and the subsistence employed by the many and various people who find them meaningful and satisfying.You likely are aware that as a result of widespread European monarchical colonialism combining with the trancultural or global religions, such as Buddhism, Imperial Christianity and Islam, a fair share of indigenous religions have been destroyed, rejected or abandoned.Now, continuing in this understanding, where some have accepted the arriving religion on their own terms and slotted it into their own unique indigenous understanding, many other indigenous religions have been adapted to the presence of the more powerful or dominating religions.Granted, there are many that also continue with considerable vitality and creativity.Imho, such processes that keep religions continuously relevant are not only interesting in themselves, but, as rev's openly theistic interpretation's of his belief system may present, they seem to provide the most recent examples of the quite ordinary fact that all religions continuously change.'Tradition' does not mean that nothing ever changes, as much as it may indicate that one generation sets standards by which the next might judge the value of an idea or practice before changing. This is an integral role played by the Original Testament prophetic traditions.They may accordingly be the first practitioners recorded as employing what may now commonly be known as a unique form of critical theory.Indigenous religions, and religions in general, are rarely simple or simplistic and needn't be mistaken for the basic building blocks from which 'more advanced' religions take form or evolve, much less are they 'simple attributes', nor are they the fossilized remains of the earliest or first religions.Perhaps, in summary, religions may be considered to be ways in which particular groups of people seek the means of improving health, happiness and even wealth for themselves, their families and their communities, while, most commonly, communing with perceptions of the divine.As you seem to be suggesting, and I would quickly agree, finding out what a particular group means by health, wealth and happiness, and how they will go about improving these, may greatly enhance one's understanding of that particular group's culture, and hence, religious parameters.One Love

---

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have condemned the innocent; why trust what I say when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

Rev Replies; Well I apologize, it was pretty, but I was becoming frustrated because your style is difficult to understand at times. Ha! My style is not nearly as happy (although a disingenuous happy) & witty as yours! My style is more like one of my favorite artists songs prelude in e minor (Chopin). Kind of sad with a biting (maybe nibbling) desperate inevitably to it. Oops a typo or perhaps a Freudian slip! I meant to say that more than likely NO religion has everything 100% correct. Sorry my friend. I am happy you did not trounce me for that! Perhaps religion does hold so much on the line! I think as pastors we have a certain responsibility, and of course that responsibility is teaching. If the pastor or religious leader is teaching questionable doctrine perhaps the students should read their thumping manuals and challenge the teacher Mashiach is the only flesh and blood leader without sin. That said I equate control by human leaders with evil in the overwhelming number of cases. So I would say that many Christian and other religious leaders are evil by default. its a general statement. Of course there are good leaders. Good Christian leaders, good Jewish leaders and good Islamic leaders speaking in a causal sense. As I said I am sincere and preach my doctrine. I am qualified to teach in all 50 states (after obtaining a certificate), and have life experience as well as what I think was a personal revelation from God. (Don't worry it was a harmless one!).So, seeing that I could be a teacher and have been (qualified to teach) for over thirty years, and you are a ? I suggest that you should cease and desist from attempting to guess my abilities and certainly stop guessing my sincerity. Well that is a ignorant statement. I am rather outraged that you think God has seen fit to make you the judge of my beliefs. Such blind arrogance. I am amused that you think that you have a reason to be arrogant, judging by the archives you dont. I do wish you would resort to using plain English. That fluffy prose does nothing to wow me nor does it add anything to the accuracy or credibility of your claims and statements. I have no idea what you mean by I have calmed your oceans. If I have bestowed a Malia Kai to you, well that is wonderful! However would you define what you meant by that statement?What do you mean when you say that I have effectively exposed any threat of RLC? Why do you use the word threat? Its all near gibberish to me. What a ignorant statement. Truly ignorant. My life's work demonstrates my sincerity and as for genuine who knows what you mean by that. BTW my church ABOTCC (Apocalyptic Bearer Of The Cross Church) as well as my two christian humanitarian missions Mountain Manna Mission (M&M) and Mission of the Crosses (MC)are all op public record and are available on request with a large SASE and a couple of dollars for the trip to the court house and making copies. Perhaps one day God will make you my peer,judge and jury, until then you can keep your ignorant (because they are demonstrably ignorant) personal ruminations strictly personal? Thank you! For the record, I have an established doctrine and I am not here to seek approval from my peers. I already have approval in the form of a church two missions and the paper hanging on the wall. So why you think that your uninvited opinion of my personal issues mean anything is beyond me! Of course I would rather this be a cordial experience, but your insolent manner is making that difficult. I have suspected your style hides your true nature, and outbursts such as the above lends credence for that suspicion. Why dont you come out of your prose closet and maybe then we will not waste time with the kids gloves. Actually you have only criticized me personally with no evidence nor proof to challenge my beliefs. Hint; drop the mind reading attempts resist the urge to hide behind that mask of sarcasm and disingenuous friendliness. Yes I rather detest the con men that claim to be Christians asking old women for their life savings etc. That is repulsive. Those false prophets are criminal in Gods eyes. Thought I love Israel she reminds me of that con man, if not for the USA (and Jesus) she would not exist. No you think I am a false prophet. By design or by mistake. I can tell you if I am a false prophet Satan has me so fooled I cant see it, maybe Jesus will forgive that if its true, remember anything is possible in this universe nothing is impossible. However my claims are backed by scripture so I might not be Kosher, but I am a red letter Christian. You shouldnt equate avoiding with ignorance or even a intentional tactic. I simply like to pick my own battles or discussions. I would rather start another thread than attempt to cover several novel length subjects within the framework of one thread. It dilutes the original intent of the thread and becomes boo coo confusing after a short while. Well the blind watchmaker may be a pressure cooker allowing ignorant ideas to harmlessly cook away to nothing. But if you are speaking Yin and yang I agree, and have in my writings and public speaking alluded that in this universe the bad must be balanced by the good, everything is necessary. You should read drawings black box written by a apologists on our side. Nevertheless, I am thankful for everything in a strange way. To be fair, I did not say that Richard Dawkings work wasnt useful. Just playing. Repeating that God is God regardless of the attributes assigned to him. The descriptions etc are only the various religions (as I have said). Please I was using the metaphor for your convince converse with me sans the wit and my language. I was using the metaphor analogies to illustrate only a portion of my ideas not my entire post. You knew that right? As one of my heroes Barney fife would say you have to nip these things in the bud, otherwise they get out of hand, however I think we are learning to speak to one another, maybe it will take time? BTW insults taunts etc are like road rage, its not the guy that cuts you off that enrages you its all the ones that come before him that enrages you. its a cumulative thing Bailey. I will attempt to answer some questions below; What do you mean by a standard preference? Allow me to rephrase the original statement instead of using the cut and style comparison. I simply meant that more than likely no religion is 100% correct in describing God. Lets say just to clarify that the traditional Christian religion was 90% correct. Then Open theism was 89% correct, then the Jewish beliefs were 80% (hee hee) correct ..and so on with Levay Satanism maybe being .05% correct. See what I mean? There are variant traditions evident in most religions not just Christianity. That is because as time goes along its arrow new evidence emerges first century Christianity was different than twenty-first Christianity for several reasons, not the least being society changes and attempts to (wrongly) change religion along with other reasons.Nevertheless, I think that the main message gets out, and that message is that God lives and there is a book that describes him. The message tells us to read and study the book, use your common sense, research, learn as much as you can and believe what you must. Being righteously reactive is not an indication of guilt. It results a lifetime of debating with hostile atheists and ignorant people who are themselves violent and reactionary. Maybe you have a yes man personality like one of those head nodding dolls in a Ricans brothers lowrider. Or maybe your paradigm is one of love and peace, (although you [veiled] demeanor suggest entirely otherwise!).I think that I see the world for what it is, a battle ground for souls, both temporal and spiritual. I do attempt to bring levity into debate when applicable, but when met with sarcasm and insult, well, my playful attitude pretty much exits the building! So, your strange mix feigning friendship then stabbing one in the back isnt alien to me, I grew up with a alcoholic in the family. So I know how to handle your somewhat Jeckel and Hyde personality and maybe with some practice we can learn to communicate. Was it you that criticized me for being thin skinned? Be sure it were you that first shot a insult across my bow. Har har. Load the cannon boyz he is attemptin hang canvas an' run into the wind Ha I contribute in my small way by planting seeds. In time they will grow in you and hopefully shape your paradigm towards my reality. Hey brother may I ask do you identify with any religion?One more thing brother. If you want to drop the sarcasm and the mild insults I will be happy to do the same. I like you in a strange way however I will be honest and say I do not trust you, but I will thank you for the debate, well what there was of it, most of this was just interoffice gossip and personal bs.; }> Edited by RevCrossHugger, : No reason given.Edited by RevCrossHugger, : No reason given.

Thanks for your correction, I should of written those of us that worship a God, worship the same God.; {>