|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Sept 12, 2018 19:32:48 GMT
Would I be making an unfounded assumption if I thought any participants in this thread were pissed? yes I can’t figure out what to be upset about. |
|
Eλευθερί
Junior Member
@eleutheri
Posts: 3,710
Likes: 1,670
|
Post by Eλευθερί on Sept 12, 2018 20:06:49 GMT
Getting back to this--Why is it that so many people's prayers for things like winning the lottery, being cured of a terminal disease, or winning a war do not produce the results that they pray for?
Was Jesus just speaking metaphorically?
|
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Sept 12, 2018 20:49:18 GMT
And Vegas , was Jesus a dispassionate automaton in the temple during this episode, as you apparently think he was with the fig tree, or was he angry? The text says nothing about him being angry. You're right... It doesn't say that he was angry or acted out of anger... How much anger is involved in legitimate righteous indignation?.. I honestly don't know  . But.. I don't really see the need to picture him as a lunatic, frothing at the mouth, as he shoos away those that he sees as defiling his father's house. How angry do you get when a dog gets too close to the plate that you are eating off of?.. Are you blind with anger as you shoo it away? ...Or is it more of a simple instinctual action/reaction? |
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Sept 12, 2018 22:14:24 GMT
My response was addressed to Monicah, not you. Put you inner idiot in park for a while. But... YOU REFERENCED ME IN THAT POST... DIPSHIT. You don't want me responding to a post not meant to me... Leave me out of them. That's twice this has to be explained to you. You can call me an idiot all you want... It's meaningless coming from an actual idiot.  See?... I actually take the time to explain to you WHY you're an idiot.. Twice. I'm sure with a retard like you..... it will at least take one more time.  Jeebus, how many people on this thread have asked you nicely to shut it down now? And you still can't let go of it.
I don't give a rat's fundament about who was 'referenced' in my reply, it was to Monicah, not you. Go pee on the carpet like the toddler you are if you want more attention from the adults in the room.
|
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Sept 12, 2018 22:16:57 GMT
Is that the only way you can get attention ? Yeah... My money is on this dipshit being Rabbit. All insult. No brains. Says the guy who's using 36 point bold font, to get the attention from his peers he's been thus far denied on this thread  . |
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Sept 12, 2018 22:24:06 GMT
But... YOU REFERENCED ME IN THAT POST... DIPSHIT. You don't want me responding to a post not meant to me... Leave me out of them. That's twice this has to be explained to you. You can call me an idiot all you want... It's meaningless coming from an actual idiot. See?... I actually take the time to explain to you WHY you're an idiot.. Twice. I'm sure with a retard like you..... it will at least take one more time. Jeebus, how many people on this thread have asked you nicely to shut it down now? And you still can't let go of it.
Hey, dipshit..... They aren't just asking me, you fucking moron.
Then don't mention me in posts that you don't want me to respond to, Rabbit... I knew you'd be soooo fucking stupid that it would have to be explained to you for a third time. Your stupidity never fails expectation.  |
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Sept 12, 2018 22:36:32 GMT
Jeebus, how many people on this thread have asked you nicely to shut it down now? And you still can't let go of it.
Then don't mention me in posts that you don't want me to respond to, Rabbit... I knew you'd be soooo fucking stupid that it would have to be explained to you for a third time. Your stupidity never fails expectation. Looks like the posts requesting you to STFU appear to be addressed to you, when there's a name mentioned in them.
Keep impressing everyone here, dude. You're doing just fine so far.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Sept 12, 2018 22:47:09 GMT
Hey, dipshit..... They aren't just asking me, you fucking moron.
Then don't mention me in posts that you don't want me to respond to, Rabbit... I knew you'd be soooo fucking stupid that it would have to be explained to you for a third time. Your stupidity never fails expectation. Retard, you aren't even making sense anymore...  Edit: Well, numnuts, Here's a post by Rachael: Notice that it's not addressed to just me.... Like I said... but, you can't help but be stupid.
|
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Sept 12, 2018 22:51:38 GMT
Keep impressing everyone here, dude. You're doing just fine so far. Retard, you aren't even making sense anymore... Y'know, maybe you should stop hogging the rec room computer and let the other inmates have a chance at it for a while. |
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Sept 12, 2018 22:54:18 GMT
Retard, you aren't even making sense anymore... Y'know, maybe you should stop hogging the rec room computer and let the other inmates have a chance at it for a while.  - "MA!!! VEGAS FIGURED OUT THAT I SWITCHED PROFILES!!" ::oldlady:: - " Goddammit.. I thought that boy moved out of the basement months ago... That's nice, dear. Glad you have finally made some friends." |
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Sept 12, 2018 22:57:29 GMT
Y'know, maybe you should stop hogging the rec room computer and let the other inmates have a chance at it for a while. - "MA!!! VEGAS FIGURED OUT THAT I SWITCHED PROFILES!!" ::oldlady:: - " Goddammit.. I thought that boy moved out of the basement months ago... That's nice, dear. Glad you have finally made some friends." Or put down the crack pipe.
Crap, if you burst veins to this degree over a frigging internet exchange, I really hope you have no SO, kids, or pets in your offline existence .
|
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Sept 12, 2018 23:03:13 GMT
Well.. Now that I figured out exactly who you are... and knowing just how pathetic you really are.. I'm gonna bail on our conversation... before we bore the rest of the board to literal death. Have fun being the absolutely moronic loser that you are. See ya when you have to pretend to be somebody else again.  |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Sept 12, 2018 23:34:27 GMT
Would I be making an unfounded assumption if I thought any participants in this thread were pissed? It is a really stupid thread. Did you mean 'pissed' as in angry or 'pissed' like in affected by alcohol? It looks like both to me. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2018 0:00:40 GMT
When you say "quotes you can't find" do you mean what I'm quoting "spiritually fruitful" in my post? Im referencing it to this verse: Galatians 5:22-23 :
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.Fruit is used in a spiritual sense here and I saw the connection between that and the fruit of the fig tree. So many other verses in the Bible show how the fig tree is metaphorical so I thought that would help represent the metaphor more. The literal fig tree itself isn't so important in these stories, but the physical state of the fig tree is important when teaching the metaphor. Also, you're analyzing this as if it were a true story in a literal sense. To me it's a just a story showing a metaphorical truth. If you believe this was an actual historical event than I could understand your point more. I also understand why someone would wonder why Jesus would kill a tree just because it didn't have fruit. It would be seen unnecessary to physically kill a tree just to teach a point, but telling a story about someone killing a tree and what the tree represents without actually harming any tree in the process could still effectively get the message across. Aye, and there's the rub. Aren't we told, both in the Bible and in Christian teaching in general that Jesus is The Way, The Truth and The Light? Isn't everything he says (as indeed, every word in the bible) supposedly literally true? Yet, what we find is a figure and a book that repeatedly has to be 'interpreted', 'explained' and dissected by the supposedly learned for the benefit of the supposedly unlearned. Jesus' message, god's message, are supposedly so simple and plain, a three-year-old child (or even vegas for that matter) can understand it. So why the need for all the filterings, readings, and interpretations that are subject to whatever the person reading them wants to place on those words and teachings? Couldn't Jesus simply speak plainly, in language so plain that not even the passage of millenia could alter the simple truth of what he said? Some Christians (most I'd imagine) would answer why yes, and that this is already the case. So again--why the need for countless explications that can be re-arranged to fit whatever construction any individual chooses to place upon them? We know that Jesus more than once spoke in 'parables' that even his own followers couldn't understand--and why, if he was Son o' God, should that be the case? He couldn't explain things in the literal, truthful, simple manner Christianity credits him with? All the obfuscatory language and need for countless explanations and varying readings points heavily to one thing, and most Christians know what this is. And they're afraid to admit to this, because it would blow apart the myth that their savior was anything but a man, in fact a divine being, chief messenger of god. Problem is, his 'message' is frequently so garbled, it takes hundreds of thousands of 'explainers' down the centuries to try and tell us what that message is; and after all the years, it's obvious hardly any two people in a room can yet agree on precisely what that message was. That doesn't sound like the utterances of someone whose every word and act was to be taken, ever, as 'gospel truth'. I think only a minority of people would take everything in the Bible as a literal truth. Religious extremists are the only people I think that would since religions can highly influence people to read in only limited amount of aspects that their taught. I personally don't take much difference between reading the Bible and any other piece of literature that can be interpreted by the individual reader differently. These interpretations get discussed, compared, and debated by readers of the same story. It's even true that the authors sometimes didn't intend for their writing to be taken a certain way and that's because a story can have more than one meaning even if the authors themselves weren't consciously aware of them. This can also be true for people within religions that promote their religious texts. If the interpretation can be supported by text than it can't ever be taken as incorrect. Even if you're taught to read something a certain way or taught what the meaning of a certain text is there are still other perspectives out there that can't be discredited as long as if it's still supported by text. This can also true for the Bible. When reading the Bible specifically as a whole take every note of you own interpretations and see if there are any contradictions between those. If they are then find different interpretations. Like you mentioned this process takes years by hundreds of thousands of different people. I don't think many books in general can be 100% agreed upon between everyone and these discussions of meaning and interpretation will always continue. |
|
Eλευθερί
Junior Member
@eleutheri
Posts: 3,710
Likes: 1,670
|
Post by Eλευθερί on Sept 13, 2018 0:14:56 GMT
Aye, and there's the rub. Aren't we told, both in the Bible and in Christian teaching in general that Jesus is The Way, The Truth and The Light? Isn't everything he says (as indeed, every word in the bible) supposedly literally true? Yet, what we find is a figure and a book that repeatedly has to be 'interpreted', 'explained' and dissected by the supposedly learned for the benefit of the supposedly unlearned. Jesus' message, god's message, are supposedly so simple and plain, a three-year-old child (or even vegas for that matter) can understand it. So why the need for all the filterings, readings, and interpretations that are subject to whatever the person reading them wants to place on those words and teachings? Couldn't Jesus simply speak plainly, in language so plain that not even the passage of millenia could alter the simple truth of what he said? Some Christians (most I'd imagine) would answer why yes, and that this is already the case. So again--why the need for countless explications that can be re-arranged to fit whatever construction any individual chooses to place upon them? We know that Jesus more than once spoke in 'parables' that even his own followers couldn't understand--and why, if he was Son o' God, should that be the case? He couldn't explain things in the literal, truthful, simple manner Christianity credits him with? All the obfuscatory language and need for countless explanations and varying readings points heavily to one thing, and most Christians know what this is. And they're afraid to admit to this, because it would blow apart the myth that their savior was anything but a man, in fact a divine being, chief messenger of god. Problem is, his 'message' is frequently so garbled, it takes hundreds of thousands of 'explainers' down the centuries to try and tell us what that message is; and after all the years, it's obvious hardly any two people in a room can yet agree on precisely what that message was. That doesn't sound like the utterances of someone whose every word and act was to be taken, ever, as 'gospel truth'. I think only a minority of people would take everything in the Bible as a literal truth. Religious extremists are the only people I think that would since religions can highly influence people to read in only limited amount of aspects that their taught. I personally don't take much difference between reading the Bible and any other piece of literature that can be interpreted by the individual reader differently. These interpretations get discussed, compared, and debated by readers of the same story. It's even true that the authors sometimes didn't intend for their writing to be taken a certain way and that's because a story can have more than one meaning even if the authors themselves weren't consciously aware of them. This can also be true for people within religions that promote their religious texts. If the interpretation can be supported by text than it can't ever be taken as incorrect. Even if you're taught to read something a certain way or taught what the meaning of a certain text is there are still other perspectives out there that can't be discredited as long as if it's still supported by text. This can also true for the Bible. When reading the Bible specifically as a whole take every note of you own interpretations and see if there are any contradictions between those. If they are then find different interpretations. Like you mentioned this process takes years by hundreds of thousands of different people. I don't think many books in general can be 100% agreed upon between everyone and these discussions of meaning and interpretation will always continue. Why wouldn't the all-powerful God instill directly within human beings the instinctive knowledge of good and evil? Of moral behavior and immoral? And, failing that, why would the all-powerful God not present human beings with that knowledge through a clear-cut, incontrovertible, foolproof method of communication? It makes no sense that the all-powerful, all-good God would leave so much to misinterpretation, especially when so much misinterpretation could be the source for so much human misery. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2018 0:35:02 GMT
you're analyzing this as if it were a true story in a literal sense. To me it's a just a story showing a metaphorical truth. If you believe this was an actual historical event than I could understand your point more. I also understand why someone would wonder why Jesus would kill a tree just because it didn't have fruit. It would be seen unnecessary to physically kill a tree just to teach a point, but telling a story about someone killing a tree and what the tree represents without actually harming any tree in the process could still effectively get the message across. The Gospel recounts in the passage immediately following the fig tree episode in Mark and immediately preceding the fig tree episode in Matthew how Jesus drove out the merchants from the temple, overturning tables and benches. Was this also merely metaphorical or are we to believe that this event actually happened? And Vegas , was Jesus a dispassionate automaton in the temple during this episode, as you apparently think he was with the fig tree, or was he angry? The text says nothing about him being angry. For the sake of the story if you take it as a literal event (as in within the story in order to make sense of it, not exactly historically) than there is a reason behind why it happened that way, and it seems the most obvious that it was done out of justified anger considering what was going on. I'm sure that a metaphor or a deeper meaning can be taken from this story as well. I actually think it connects with my last point about what the story of the fig tree represented, (Appearing to be thriving and good but losing it's purpose resulting it to become unfruitful). You can call it "cleansing of the temple" because he was literally getting rid of what was corrupting it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2018 0:45:56 GMT
I think only a minority of people would take everything in the Bible as a literal truth. Religious extremists are the only people I think that would since religions can highly influence people to read in only limited amount of aspects that their taught. I personally don't take much difference between reading the Bible and any other piece of literature that can be interpreted by the individual reader differently. These interpretations get discussed, compared, and debated by readers of the same story. It's even true that the authors sometimes didn't intend for their writing to be taken a certain way and that's because a story can have more than one meaning even if the authors themselves weren't consciously aware of them. This can also be true for people within religions that promote their religious texts. If the interpretation can be supported by text than it can't ever be taken as incorrect. Even if you're taught to read something a certain way or taught what the meaning of a certain text is there are still other perspectives out there that can't be discredited as long as if it's still supported by text. This can also true for the Bible. When reading the Bible specifically as a whole take every note of you own interpretations and see if there are any contradictions between those. If they are then find different interpretations. Like you mentioned this process takes years by hundreds of thousands of different people. I don't think many books in general can be 100% agreed upon between everyone and these discussions of meaning and interpretation will always continue. Why wouldn't the all-powerful God instill directly within human beings the instinctive knowledge of good and evil? Of moral behavior and immoral? And, failing that, why would the all-powerful God not present human beings with that knowledge through a clear-cut, incontrovertible, foolproof method of communication? It makes no sense that the all-powerful, all-good God would leave so much to misinterpretation, especially when so much misinterpretation could be the source for so much human misery. It can't be considered misinterpretation if it is supported, and when some are misinterpretations then that just represents our own human flaws. Everyone's perspective of God is different and that would be including that he's non-existent, just an abstract concept, or an actual supreme being. |
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Sept 13, 2018 11:44:33 GMT
Well.. Now that I figured out exactly who you are... and knowing just how pathetic you really are.. I'm gonna bail on our conversation... before we bore the rest of the board to literal death. Have fun being the absolutely moronic loser that you are. See ya when you have to pretend to be somebody else again. I love it when a troll becomes so desperate that he has to accuse others of his own maneuvers, just before jumping ship like the rat he really is. But it's nice to know you've decided to spare others the onus of your continued biblical scholarship here. Anyway, it'll leave you more time to play Sherlock Holmes, deducing what my 'true identity' really is. (That Rabbit dude must have forked with your head a-plenty, though that doesn't seem difficult I'll admit.) The funniest part of reading those exchanges is that none of the people you've attempted to convince of your cockamamie 'theory' appear to be buying into it. Looks like you're about as credible elsewhere as you've been here . |
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Sept 13, 2018 11:56:54 GMT
Why wouldn't the all-powerful God instill directly within human beings the instinctive knowledge of good and evil? Of moral behavior and immoral? And, failing that, why would the all-powerful God not present human beings with that knowledge through a clear-cut, incontrovertible, foolproof method of communication? It makes no sense that the all-powerful, all-good God would leave so much to misinterpretation, especially when so much misinterpretation could be the source for so much human misery. It makes no sense from the very word go that a supposedly perfect being would create such imperfect and flawed beings, and then go on to curse them for the flaws in his own handiwork. If one wanted to buy into the idea even momentarily that god was real, a more likely explanation for the whole mess would lie in the idea that he's not perfect, indeed is as flawed as his creations (whom he made in his image, let's not forget), and that the resulting span of human misery could be just as easily attributed to a spiteful and angry being who wanted to create perfection and found to his chagrin that he was incapable of it. God as Trelane. I sort of find myself warming to that idea. |
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Sept 13, 2018 12:03:43 GMT
Aye, and there's the rub. Aren't we told, both in the Bible and in Christian teaching in general that Jesus is The Way, The Truth and The Light? Isn't everything he says (as indeed, every word in the bible) supposedly literally true? Yet, what we find is a figure and a book that repeatedly has to be 'interpreted', 'explained' and dissected by the supposedly learned for the benefit of the supposedly unlearned. Jesus' message, god's message, are supposedly so simple and plain, a three-year-old child (or even vegas for that matter) can understand it. So why the need for all the filterings, readings, and interpretations that are subject to whatever the person reading them wants to place on those words and teachings? Couldn't Jesus simply speak plainly, in language so plain that not even the passage of millenia could alter the simple truth of what he said? Some Christians (most I'd imagine) would answer why yes, and that this is already the case. So again--why the need for countless explications that can be re-arranged to fit whatever construction any individual chooses to place upon them? We know that Jesus more than once spoke in 'parables' that even his own followers couldn't understand--and why, if he was Son o' God, should that be the case? He couldn't explain things in the literal, truthful, simple manner Christianity credits him with? All the obfuscatory language and need for countless explanations and varying readings points heavily to one thing, and most Christians know what this is. And they're afraid to admit to this, because it would blow apart the myth that their savior was anything but a man, in fact a divine being, chief messenger of god. Problem is, his 'message' is frequently so garbled, it takes hundreds of thousands of 'explainers' down the centuries to try and tell us what that message is; and after all the years, it's obvious hardly any two people in a room can yet agree on precisely what that message was. That doesn't sound like the utterances of someone whose every word and act was to be taken, ever, as 'gospel truth'. Religious extremists are the only people I think that would since religions can highly influence people to read in only limited amount of aspects that their taught. I personally don't take much difference between reading the Bible and any other piece of literature that can be interpreted by the individual reader differently. These interpretations get discussed, compared, and debated by readers of the same story. It's even true that the authors sometimes didn't intend for their writing to be taken a certain way and that's because a story can have more than one meaning even if the authors themselves weren't consciously aware of them. This can also be true for people within religions that promote their religious texts. If the interpretation can be supported by text than it can't ever be taken as incorrect. Even if you're taught to read something a certain way or taught what the meaning of a certain text is there are still other perspectives out there that can't be discredited as long as if it's still supported by text. This can also true for the Bible. When reading the Bible specifically as a whole take every note of you own interpretations and see if there are any contradictions between those. If they are then find different interpretations. Like you mentioned this process takes years by hundreds of thousands of different people. I don't think many books in general can be 100% agreed upon between everyone and these discussions of meaning and interpretation will always continue. I find your post interesting (most of them here have been), but I have to disagree with you at the first sentence. Most Christian sects do enjoin their followers to take the Bible as literal truth down to the last 'and' and 'the' (apologies to Mary McCarthy), and even if the average theologian doesn't do so--as don't, I'd imagine, most people of an average level of common sense--it doesn't alter the fact that a root foundation of Christian belief lies in the notion that The Word is to be taken very literally indeed, and that it was intended by God, its author, to be. Certainly most forms of 'primitive' Christian sects, while definitely placing their own spin on scripture, frown mightily on attempts by others to 'interpret' or 're-read' any of it as being other than literally true to what's on the printed page. |
|
.
