You know, it might be more productive if you try to support your beliefs where you might get them right than to continue trying to tell me what I believe where you always get it wrong.
This seems obvious to me. You've said in a number of threads that Jesus cannot be God because there is no sacrifice at all.
Yet more misrepresentation.
I said that the concept of the Trinity is hard to support. Well, if you are honest, it is. There is no direct Biblical support, and the concept of three in one is counter intuitive and illogical. That is NOT aversion to the Trinity, it is honesty.
I did not say there is no sacrifice, and in fact have repeated here many times that I do believe in a sacrifice, just that Jesus dying for the sins of man, the crucifixion as some blood sacrifice is stupid.
The Sacrifice is GOD becoming Man. GOD, the being that created the Universe and all that is, seen and unseen, becoming man.
GOD becoming Man.
GOD, the being that created the Universe and all that is, seen and unseen, messing himself and having to learn how to control his bowels and go potty.
GOD becoming Man.
GOD, the being that created the Universe and all that is, seen and unseen, having to learn to walk, tottering on shaky legs, falling down on his butt.
GOD becoming Man.
GOD, the being that created the Universe and all that is, seen and unseen, having to learn to talk, babbling away as he learns his Alpha Beta Gammas.
God becoming fully man. Helpless, ignorant, awkward and unsure.
That is the Sacrifice. And it was for us and our salvation. GOD became one of us as a teacher and example.
But see, even this fails, because you also say that you are not a literalist. If that's the case then what the Bible actually says is pointless since without a more literal translation its open to all sorts of abstractions.
But that's beside the point. You tell people to throw away the Bible. We could only logically deduce that you think the Bible is not really from God at all.
Ah. Now we move towards what really infringes on your comfort zone.
Yes. I tell people (actually I told Phat) to Throw God away, to Throw the Bible away.
People often let objects and their own preconceptions get in the way of understanding. In this case you are once again just pulling a piece of what I said out of context and then assigning your own interpretations.
What I have said is that if you want to get to know GOD you must first Throw God away. If you want to understand the message of the Bible you must first Throw the Bible away.
There are few things that drive folk away from GOD more than the Bible and Christians.
That might seem confusing, so let me explain.
You said; "But see, even this fails, because you also say that you are not a literalist. If that's the case then what the Bible actually says is pointless since without a more literal translation its open to all sorts of abstractions."
Is that what you do though. If I read Genesis 1 literally then read Genesis 2 literally I immediately see that they are mutually exclusive, contradictory, describe two different Gods, and so the Bible is falsified.
If I read the Bible literally, God is evil, capricious, untrustworthy and petty.
I believe that if you ever want to really understand GOD's message, then the first step is to throw out ALL that you think you know about Him and begin as a child.
Start by reading three or four translations of the Tao Te Ching. Read the Qur'an, study the Talmud, read the works of Mencius and Confucius and Norse and Greek and Roman mythology. Read the Book of the Dead. Read Twain's Mysterious Stranger and Alice through the Looking Glass and the Canticle for Leibowitz and Das Kapital and the speeches of Abraham Lincoln.
Then, and only then, return to the Bible. Start at the beginning and work your way through.
You seem to think Jesus was a Christian. He was a Jew. Sorry, but that is a fact.
You've misrepresented everything people commonly refer to as "Christian" and "Creationist."
Maybe those Christians you hang out with but as I pointed out with links to the Clergy Project, at least 10,000 US Christian Clergy would agree with me.
One problem may be that you do not know what Christianity is. Throw Christianity away. Get rid of your little mind picture of what Christianity is. Become as a child and actually learn just how broad and inclusive Christianity is.
Learn that Christianity is just one Map. It is NOT the Territory. Like all maps, it will be more or less accurate in areas. Stop pretending that it is actually the Territory.
No argument there. But you seem to derive much pleasure from singling them out as the sole proprietors of horror. The fact of the matter is that all of mankind is at fault. Most people don't equate hippies with violence. But I've seen some hippies throw down. That doesn't indict all hippies. Nor should it indict all Christians.
Nor do I indict all Christians. I do indict the current crop of Christians that support oppression in the form of the Defense of Marriage Act or the so called "Pro-life" Christians. I do say that we, as Christians must acknowledge the horrific acts we have committed in the past if we are to avoid committing similar acts in the future.
What exactly is a system of evolution, when routine assertion is that it all happens on its own?
That is the system. LOL
Sure, we could reduce GOD to some painter or drummer, but GOD is so much more. Imagine a painter that creates a canvass on the scale of the Universe that is ever changing, ever new, ever evolving and doing it simply through an act of will.
I just did. And apparently I'm not the only one who feels the same. Just about everyone is having a hard time understanding your definitions, which is consequently what prompted you to, again, attempt to elucidate your position.
You may think that you have shown where my beliefs are "oxymoronic" and if so, that is fine. I have never said that what I present will be easily understood by all. However, it also seems that quite a few folk do "get it." And that is fine. Every time one of you posts it gives me another opportunity to try to support my position.
If I called myself a black man, but had virtually no melanin in my skin and a vagina why would you doubt that I'm a black man?
Ah. Back on the "True Christian" nonsense.
What a totally absurd ridiculous sophomoric question.
At first my reaction was to simply laugh at it as just more foolish blather, but perhaps it deserves a somewhat joking response even if it does not deserve respect or a serious one.
If you called your self a scientist and you were accepted as such by one of the professional boards, I would certainly accept you as a scientist.
If you said you were black but looked white as a lily I would accept that you considered yourself black and no longer wanted to "Pass".
If you were a man and had a vagina I would likely ask if you had considered a sex change operation.
Edited by jar, : B&W
Aslan is not a
Tame Lion
™ Version 4.2