Total posts: 906
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I don't think Bro D. will change, but for his actions and intrusiveness, along with his disrespect toward my forum's guidelines, I want it to be known to all who were involved that his claims are paradoxical and self-contradictory.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
Here is the summary derived from Wikipedia: Buddhism - Wikipedia
Part 1 of the page talks about:
- Buddhism: An Indian religion or philosophy based on the teachings of the Buddha, who attained liberation from suffering and rebirth.
- Buddha: A title for someone who has awakened to the truth of reality and ended the cycle of saṃsāra. The historical Buddha was born as Siddhartha Gautama and taught the path to nirvana.
- Four Noble Truths: The core teachings of Buddhism that explain the nature and cause of suffering ( dukkha ), and the way to end it through the Noble Eightfold Path.
- Saṃsāra: The endless cycle of birth and death driven by karma and ignorance ( avidyā )2. Buddhism teaches that one can escape from saṃsāra by attaining nirvana.
- Karma: The law of cause and effect that determines the quality of one’s rebirth. Karma is influenced by one’s intentions, actions, and ethical conduct.
- Nirvana: The ultimate goal of Buddhism, which is the cessation of suffering and rebirth. Nirvana is achieved by eliminating the mental defilements ( kleshas ) and realizing the true nature of reality.
- Dependent arising: The doctrine that all phenomena are interdependent and conditioned by multiple causes. This doctrine rejects the existence of a permanent self or soul in any being.
- Three Jewels: The objects of refuge for Buddhists, which are the Buddha, the Dharma (the teachings), and the Sangha (the monastic community)3.
- Meditation: A practice of cultivating mental calmness, concentration, and insight. Meditation is based on mindfulness ( sati ) and involves various techniques such as breathing, dhyāna (absorption), and vipassanā (insight).
- Mahāyāna Buddhism: A branch of Buddhism that developed new doctrines and practices, such as emptiness ( śūnyatā ), Buddha-nature ( tathāgatagarbha ), bodhisattva ideal, and various sutras and philosophical schools.
Part 2 of the page talks about:
- Four immeasurables: The virtues of loving-kindness, compassion, empathetic joy and equanimity, which lead to rebirth in the heavenly realm.
- Visualization practices: The use of images and symbols of deities and Buddhas in meditation, especially in Tantric Buddhism, to cultivate calmness and insight.
- Prajñā and vipaśyanā: The wisdom and insight into the true nature of reality, which are cultivated through mindfulness and various techniques such as the four establishments of mindfulness.
- Devotion and faith: The practice of ritual prayer, prostration, offerings, pilgrimage, and chanting, which are directed towards the Buddha, the Dharma, the Sangha and other objects of reverence.
- Vegetarianism: The ethical principle of non-harming ( ahimsa ), which leads some Buddhists to avoid eating meat or killing animals for food.
- Buddhist texts: The diverse literature that records the teachings and practices of Buddhism, such as the Tripiṭaka, the Mahāyāna sūtras, the Tantras and the commentaries.
- History of Buddhism: The development and spread of Buddhism from its origins in India to various regions and cultures of Asia and the West, as well as its encounters with other religions and political powers.
- Buddhist traditions: The different schools and movements of Buddhism that have emerged over time, such as Theravāda, Mahāyāna, Vajrayana, Navayana and Buddhist modernism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
I recently read a simple and yet fascinating book: Everyday Dharma by Suneel Gupta
This helped me gain a firm grasp of one perspective on Buddhism.
You can find other information on the following links:
Remember that Buddhism is not a single unified religion, but rather a collection of diverse and sometimes overlapping beliefs and practices. There is no official form of Buddhism that is universally accepted by all Buddhists, but rather different schools and traditions that have their own interpretations and emphases.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
@Sidewalker
Sidewalker: I find it most interesting that the NDE is experienced so vividly, it is an intense conscious event that is inversely correlated with the neural correlates of consciousness. As the brain shuts down, the lower level of neural activity is associated with a much higher degree of consciousness. Experienced as if, rather than consciousness being a product of the physical activities of the brain, it is more like consciousness is being freed from the constraints of its materialistic containment.
It's possible that when our brains shut down, our comprehension diminishes. However, we continue to be in sensory contact with everything we were exposed to before. This might lead us to believe that we are in contact with what appears to be the entire universe, although in reality, it's the same experiences we had before, only without the sense of awe. This feeling of awe could be a result of having lower consciousness but normal sensory input. It makes the experience seem like normal consciousness in relation to the heightened sensory input we now perceive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
@IlDiavolo
@Tradesecret
@zedvictor4
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
All comments regarding Christian scriptures and interpretations going forward can be addressed here:
Let us, for the sake of organized topics, address our inquiries in the appropriate forums.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
All comments regarding Christian scriptures and interpretations can be addressed here.
Now, let us begin.
Created:
Posted in:
This forum is meant to continue the interruptive discussion left off in the forum "Everything about Buddhism," specifically between me and Mr.BrotherD.Thomas.
I would normally post my positive environment guideline below, but since none of the mods are concerned with enforcing site policies for Mr.BrotherD.Thomas (https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9913-everything-about-buddhism), I can only ask each person is not the root of negativity.
Starting off with my last comment: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9913/posts/411271
Let me sum this up:
You fail to reconcile your belief with God's direct words from Micah 6:4, rather than choosing to believe in all God's words.
You refuse to admit 2 Peter 1:1 could be interpreted literally as one God who is also Jesus, or two beings, God as God and Jesus as Saviour.
You refuse to admit 2 Peter 1:20 could be interpreted literally as using the word "interpretation" to describe the "origin," or the "reading" of prophecies.
You fail to present any evidence that the 1611 KJV Bible is the closest to God's words, begging the question why?
Side note: God didn't speak in English, so it's an interpretation, which you quote from to paradoxically prove interpretation invalid.
You refuse to provide evidence for a God given dictionary in which to interpret his words, since words lack inherent meaning.
Side note: Failing to use a God given dictionary necessitates a human dictionary to interpret meaning, then quoting said interpretation with human dictionary paradoxically claiming all interpretations invalid, which includes your arguments source.
Finally, you have the audacity to ask me to reply to your comment #49, which bears no question mark, necessitating my interpretation of your words to respond.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
People's skepticism towards accepting determinism often stems from the misconception that it justifies all outcomes, potentially fostering complacency. However, I strongly disagree with this notion. Determinism doesn't justify outcomes; it merely foretells them.
In my perspective, individuals should continue to strive for self-improvement, maintain aspirations, and set goals. Nevertheless, they should also acknowledge that the ultimate results, whether success or failure, were predetermined by prior conditions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I was asking a relevant question about God's Holy scriptures,Ok let's start beginning with "god's holy scriptures". Who says they are "god's Holy scriptures"?They are God's Holy Scripture as part of the religion, I don't have any rational explanation, people who are Christians simply do it out of faith.So, you don't know who says they are God's holy scripture? Although you have claimed they are.Can you explain to me why it was that god required a vile, vicious, and torturous blood sacrifice of his "son" before he would forgive and save us from our sins?
I never claimed I personally believed that the Bible is God's Holy Scripture. Moreover, I did not say I had no evidence, I said I have no rational explanation. My only evidence is the Bible itself says the Bible is God's words and that is irrational and paradoxical self-reference.
I believe that in Christianity the Bible is God's Holy Scripture because it is said so in the Bible. If you're asking for rational evidence, I have none. I cannot empirically prove or disprove the existence of God and therefore it would be of no use for me to use science to dispute Mr.BrotherD.Thomas, so instead I rely on the Bible's words to best explain Christianity.
Essentially, if it is not in the Bible, I do not believe it is a part of orthodox Christianity.
I'm not certain why Jesus's death was needed to be during one of the worst times in history, but I have heard that it was to show the greatest sacrifice.
Based on my research:
One possible reason is that God is both just and merciful. He is just in that he cannot ignore or overlook the sin and rebellion of humanity, which deserves death and separation from him (Romans 3:23, 6:23). He is merciful in that he loves and cares for his creation, and does not want anyone to perish but to have eternal life (John 3:16, 2 Peter 3:9). Therefore, God needed a way to reconcile his justice and his mercy, to uphold his holiness and righteousness, and to demonstrate his love and grace. He did this by sending his son, Jesus Christ, who was fully God and fully human, to live a sinless life and to die a sacrificial death on the cross. By doing so, Jesus took the penalty and punishment for our sins upon himself, satisfying God’s justice and wrath, and providing a way for us to be forgiven and reconciled to God, receiving his mercy and grace (Romans 3:21-26, 5:6-11).
Another possible reason is that God wanted to reveal himself and his character to humanity in a personal and intimate way. He wanted to show us who he is, what he is like, how he feels about us, and what he expects from us. He did this by becoming one of us, by taking on human flesh and nature, by living among us, by teaching us, by healing us, by suffering with us, and by dying for us. By doing so, Jesus revealed God’s love, compassion, humility, obedience, faithfulness, wisdom, power, glory, and many other attributes (John 1:14-18, 14:6-11; Colossians 1:15-20; Hebrews 1:1-4).
A third possible reason is that God wanted to defeat the forces of evil and death that have corrupted and enslaved humanity since the fall of Adam and Eve. He wanted to break the power and dominion of Satan, sin, and death over us, and to liberate us from their bondage and influence. He did this by confronting and resisting them during his earthly ministry, by exposing and denouncing their lies and schemes, by overcoming their temptations and accusations, by casting out their demons and destroying their works. And ultimately, he did this by dying on the cross and rising from the dead. By doing so, Jesus disarmed and triumphed over Satan, sin, and death (Colossians 2:13-15; Hebrews 2:14-15; 1 John 3:8; Revelation 1:17-18).
What do you think?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
Some forms of Buddhism may be considered atheistic, while others may involve belief in supernatural beings and phenomena. Buddhism does not have a single concept of God, but rather focuses on the teachings of the Buddha and the attainment of enlightenment.
Paganism is also a broad term that covers various religions and practices that are often polytheistic, animistic, or nature based. Paganism is not a single unified religion, but rather a collection of diverse and sometimes overlapping beliefs and practices.
There is some evidence of syncretism between Buddhism and paganism in some regions and historical periods. Syncretism is the blending or merging of different religious traditions into a new system. For example, in ancient Gandhara (now part of Pakistan and Afghanistan), Buddhism came into contact with Greek culture and produced Greco-Buddhist art and philosophy that incorporated elements of both traditions. In Thailand and Cambodia, Buddhism coexists with local spirit religions that involve magic and rituals. In Japan, Buddhism was influenced by Shinto, the indigenous religion that worships kami (spirits) and practices purification rites.
Shaolin monks are famous for their martial arts skills and their association with Chan (Zen) Buddhism. Shaolin kung fu is one of the oldest and most influential styles of Chinese martial arts that combines physical training with meditation and philosophy. Shaolin monks do not practice magic or worship deities in the sense of paganism, but they may use certain rituals, symbols, and chants to enhance their concentration, discipline, and energy. Shaolin monks also respect and honor their ancestors, teachers, and the Buddha.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
I don't think it is entirely accurate that the distinction with Christianity is inward v outward. I actually quite emphatically indicated the difference was relationship. Christians have a living relationship with God. Not with the universe. Not with the creation but with the Creator. This is not the all or the ONE. It is the God who made the heavens and the earth. It is the God who himself gave his most precious possession, in order to demonstrate his love for his people.
The relationship between Buddhists glorifying creation and Christians glorifying the creator is only distinguished if you don't believe the universe created itself.
It is interesting that the Kingdom of God is inside us yet he is the creator of the universe, it reminded me of the idea of self-creation since the creator is within what it created.
I am aware that the scripture does also say God existed before he created the Earth, did he move into what he created after creating it, I do not know.
While it is true that Buddhism teaches an inward path, Christians don't ignore the inward. We do believe that this relationship with God, who is external to us, requires our hearts to be renewed as evidence of this relationship being reconciled. In other words, we say our hearts have been damaged - our sinful nature. This needs to be rectified - in order for us to be able to enjoy a proper relationship with God. like most things Christian, it is not just one way. There is inward, and outward. But more than that - we talk of the vertical and the horizontal. Once our relationship with God is sorted, then our relationships with others ought to follow as a natural consequence. Of course, many people dispute Christianity. It requires a deep humility which most if not all can achieve. It's more than just denying your human pleasures. Or needs. It is as Jesus put it - being born again. Starting again. This is truly a humiliating point.
I don't think the version was well interpreted from IlDiavolo: "The kingdom of God is within you", Luke 17: 20-21.
Once, on being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is in your midst.”
Jesus taught that the kingdom of God was not a physical or temporal realm, but a spiritual and eternal reality. He said that the kingdom of God was not something that could be observed or located by human senses or signs, but something that was hidden and mysterious. He also said that the kingdom of God was not something that was exclusive or distant, but something that was inclusive and present. He said that the kingdom of God was in their midst, meaning that it was among them or within them. This means that Jesus was claiming to be the embodiment and manifestation of the kingdom of God. He was saying that by following him and his teachings, anyone could enter and experience the kingdom of God. He was also saying that by rejecting him and his teachings, anyone could miss and lose the kingdom of God.
I don't think it is within us or without us but penetrates and transcends us.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I was asking a relevant question about God's Holy scriptures,Ok lets start beginning with "god's holy scriptures". Who says they are "god's Holy scriptures"?
Even if God is a character in a mythological story and nonexistent, we would still capitalise the first letter of his name, such as Anakin Skywalker.
They are God's Holy Scripture as part of the religion, I don't have any rational explanation, people who are Christians simply do it out of faith.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
I don't think we should go looking for suffering. That would be narcissistic. Yet, sometimes suffering is a way of showing love. And I think love is a higher goal than avoiding suffering. Sometimes too - I would not avoid suffering if it meant less suffering or pain for someone else. Hence, respectfully, why I suggested above that Buddhism is premised on selfishness - as the ultimate goal is to become enlightened and to go to Nirvana. it is basically an inward-looking religion, not outward.I think that losing someone we love is more suffering than the suffering avoided by failing to consider their emotions. In other words, one person might say we suffer for our loved ones, but I think a true loved one would be more suffering to lose.Ultimately, I see self-suffering for those we love as a path to a lesser suffering, which is at our self interest.We all self-sacrifice at times out of love and concern. It is not a real sacrifice if it doesn't hurt. The suffering therein is done for love - not for ourselves.I don't understand that last sentence. Can you try and rephrase it for me, please. Thanks.
I think that making sacrifices for love is not selfless but out of self-interest, for if it were not love, we would not care, but because we love, we do care.
If we do something out of our way that we do not take pleasure in and we, do it not at the reward of ourselves but at the reward of another, whom we love, many would consider this selfless, as we reaped nothing, but I believe we reaped the avoidance of future suffering of losing the person that we loved.
I'm not certain there is anything done that can truly be considered altruistic; it is human nature to act on our desires, even though many willingly are blind to how they act in self-interest, they still are, but now they have become a puppet to their unconscious-self, which I believe is worse than see who one truly is.
Ultimately, I see going out of one's way in a seemingly selfless manner for someone that we love to be a path towards less suffering than losing the one that we love and thus in our self-interest.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
I agree that band-aids do not fix the root of the issue, but I think it's important to note that not all Buddhists are communists. Buddhism and communism have some similarities, such as the rejection of a creator deity and the vision of universal egalitarianism, but they also have many differences, such as the views on materialism, violence, and individual freedom. Buddhism is a religion and a philosophy that has existed for over 2500 years, while communism is a political and economic ideology that emerged in the 19th century. Buddhism has many branches and schools, while communism has various forms and interpretations. Buddhists and communists have coexisted in some Asian countries, but they have also clashed and conflicted in others. Therefore, it is not accurate to say that all Buddhists are communists or vice versa.hmm. I think you have misunderstood me. I don't equate Buddhism with communism. I used communism above as an example of a worldview which suggests a problem to the world's problems and then a solution. Buddhism says it is about suffering. communism says it is about power. Christianity says sin is the problem.
Do you think that one possible sin in to cause more suffering in the world than God allows on his own?
In my opinion, it seems that Buddhism labels the act of creating unnecessary suffering as wrong and not at our self-interests.
I think that they share interests in reducing suffering.
As you said, Christianity says the problem is sin, I think that removing the problems produced by sin is the proper way to fix what we can.
This does not devalue the Christianity search to remove sin altogether, it complements it by reducing the consequences of past actions while we work towards removing sin permanently.
Ultimately, I see Buddhism as taking upon oneself all the unnecessary suffering that befalls one and recognising them as an inherent part of reality that we must learn from and reduce the best we can, necessitating the importance of learning to reduce suffering.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I would suggest that ambiguity in the Bible is simply indicative of the nature of it's compilation.Multiple authors reinterpreting and translating a naive Middle Eastern mythological creation hypothesis.
I don't believe that ambiguity is indicative to the nature of its compilation of multiple authors; If anything, they would have contradicted themselves by being specific.
I'm also unsure if they even knew that their works would be compiled. Why would they have been so vague?
I believe that there was a clear intent to leave the explanations ambiguous so as to apply to more circumstances of life, potentially knowing that time and culture would move on and that the ambiguity in the text would transcend that. You'll notice other parts of the Bible were less ambiguous such as, give your neighbor a goat and he shall become your friend, and that is definitely outdated in certain parts of the world.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
If it be a spade, I shall call it that.How would you better say it and why?I would just call it as it is. I would probably use the word covenant. It is the idea that - freedom or flexibility or preference if you prefer, exist within boundaries that are inflexible or rigid. The example I tend to use is the Garden of Eden. God gave humanity total freedom to eat from every tree in the garden except one. The one tree which he was forbidden to eat was the boundary. But it was an immovable boundary that had a real implication or consequence. But it had to be real boundary or else the concept of true freedom would have no definition. Sometimes, the modern mind wants to believe that freedom has no boundaries. They believe in the illusion of a "free mind". Yet, unless freedom has a boundary, freedom means absolutely nothing. It becomes a word or a feeling. It loses all meaning.
I like your explanation; it demonstrates the flexibility of walking around within the garden yet confined to it, demonstrating flexibility within rigid constraints.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
Your quote is my paraphrase of Tradesecret's argument, which very well could be incorrect.
I suggest quoting directly rather than relying on my words, which may be a distortion.
Although, I see how you correlate Buddhism and Christianity; Nirvana and Heaven are found respectively in our choices and within.
They do seem quite similar in this regard.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Christianity is not specifically about altruism. It is about loving God and then loving others. It means not thinking too highly of yourselves and treating others as better. It means recognising that all of us are sinners until we die. Yet for those who have trusted in Christ, then the resurrection will be glorious. It is sadly the fact that many people calling themselves Christian, do so for a variety of reasons. Some out of tradition. Some because they live in America. Some because they don't know any better. Others for money. But the truth is not everyone who calls themselves Christian is Christian, except in name. If we don't live like Christians, loving God and loving others, then it is evidence that we lack the Spirit of God. Like the Buddhists might say at times, Christianity is not a religion, it is a way of life. I don't actually like that terminology, since Christianity is a religion - and it is a way of life. Yet, I would say it is more than that - it is a relationship with God. And when someone has a relationship with God, then they know God intimately. Some people can know about God, but knowing about God is not the same as knowing God. I think the difference is like the difference between the definition of a kiss. The pressing of lips on another set of lips. Compared with being kissed. You can know what a kiss is - and never ever be kissed. And yet a person who has been kissed will never not know. Christians are people I say, who have been kissed by God. They know it and their lives reflect it. Many others - know about God. And they can tell you all about what and who God is - holy, and love and kind and vengeful or whatever. But they don't know God. Hence, why I say Christianity is not specifically about being altruistic.
I see as you have drawn the deep distinction between Buddhism and Christianity, respectively seeking inward, while the other seeking outward, yet the seeking of serenity on heaven or earth is the same; they seek peace.
Buddhism is not for everyone, and many would dispute Christianity, I cannot determine this for other, but only myself.
I'm not a devout Buddhist, and many would say I'm not a Christian either, as my perspectives of the world are nuanced. I simply seek to understand reality the best that one can.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Suffering comes for lots of reasons. One is stupidity. And surely, we should avoid that kind of suffering.I'm speaking of the same suffering. We should become more conscious, so we can avoid suffering caused by ignorance.I concur - I just don't know why this is any different for any person or for any worldview.
The perspective of avoiding unnecessary suffering is not exclusive to Buddhism, but is a component in many other religions and philosophies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
I don't think we should go looking for suffering. That would be narcissistic. Yet, sometimes suffering is a way of showing love. And I think love is a higher goal than avoiding suffering. Sometimes too - I would not avoid suffering if it meant less suffering or pain for someone else. Hence, respectfully, why I suggested above that Buddhism is premised on selfishness - as the ultimate goal is to become enlightened and to go to Nirvana. it is basically an inward-looking religion, not outward.
I think that losing someone we love is more suffering than the suffering avoided by failing to consider their emotions. In other words, one person might say we suffer for our loved ones, but I think a true loved one would be more suffering to lose.
Ultimately, I see self-suffering for those we love as a path to a lesser suffering, which is at our self interest.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
I guess my point is that although that might be Buddhism's understanding of the problem and solution of life, others have a different view. Communists for example believe the problem is - power - and the solution is wealth redistribution. I as a Christian think the problem is sin and that sin needs to be dealt with. for me, suffering is part of life. Possibly the result initially of sin, but not necessarily so. Getting rid of suffering in my opinion is really just a band-aid solution. Just go and have a drink. That's numb the pain. Just have a few more pills. It's almost escapism and doesn't actually address the real situation.
I agree that band-aids do not fix the root of the issue, but I think it's important to note that not all Buddhists are communists. Buddhism and communism have some similarities, such as the rejection of a creator deity and the vision of universal egalitarianism, but they also have many differences, such as the views on materialism, violence, and individual freedom. Buddhism is a religion and a philosophy that has existed for over 2500 years, while communism is a political and economic ideology that emerged in the 19th century. Buddhism has many branches and schools, while communism has various forms and interpretations. Buddhists and communists have coexisted in some Asian countries, but they have also clashed and conflicted in others. Therefore, it is not accurate to say that all Buddhists are communists or vice versa.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
That is the most tangible explanation I could think of to describe how an abstract concept could be flexible yet have constraints.The point was that the road to Nirvana is not rigid, like a single path, but rather many paths, yet they all follow the road, and there are even more paths that stray from the road, which are not the path.Ok. It seems pretty lame to me. No offence. But what you are calling constraints is ipso facto rigid. In other words, outside of the constraints, there is ABSOLUTELY no path to your Nirvana. All of the many paths MUST lie within the constraints. The lameness is not the idea, but the fact that you refuse to call a spade a spade.
My choice of words were what I believed to best capture the essence of the idea that many paths lead to Nirvana and still many more lead elsewhere.
If it be a spade, I shall call it that.
How would you better say it and why?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Let me sum this up:
You fail to reconcile your belief with God's direct words from Micah 6:4, rather than choosing to believe in all God's words.
You refuse to admit 2 Peter 1:1 could be interpreted literally as one God who is also Jesus, or two beings, God as God and Jesus as Saviour.
You refuse to admit 2 Peter 1:20 could be interpreted literally as using the word "interpretation" to describe the "origin," or the "reading" of prophecies.
You fail to present any evidence that the 1611 KJV Bible is the closest to God's words, begging the question why?
Side note: God didn't speak in English, so it's an interpretation, which you quote from to paradoxically prove interpretation invalid.
You refuse to provide evidence for a God given dictionary in which to interpret his words, since words lack inherent meaning.
Side note: Failing to use a God given dictionary necessitates a human dictionary to interpret meaning, then quoting said interpretation with human dictionary paradoxically claiming all interpretations invalid, which includes your arguments source.
Finally, you have the audacity to ask me to reply to your comment #49, which bears no question mark, necessitating my interpretation of your words to respond.
Remind me if I missed anything.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
I have no shame or worries for the outcome of this dialogue.
If I win, I will gain credibility.
If I lose, I will gain better knowledge and understanding.
While I prefer to be correct, I'm not concerned.
It is you who should be concerned for losing, since you claim your knowledge with certainty while I remain open minded.
A person who never claimed they would be a victor before the game may still lose, but one who claims his victory during the game and loses will not simply lose the game, but his pride and dignity as well.
It's really a bad deal for you, and why I refrain from insults, along with site policy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
OH OH! Guess what, you are still HIDING from the following post that I made to you, whereas I have addressed every Satanic post thus far that you have made to me! What gives? SCARED?Here is the link that you are running away from in front of the membership, where you say you own this forum? Surely you jest! LOL!The above link that you run from is only a modicum of what is yet to come in your Satanic behalf, understood? CHAIN UP!
I never saw any question marks... do you want me to interpret your implicit meaning?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
I have great plans for you in this discussion, and you better not RUN AWAY from them, do you understand? YES?
Take a moment to realize that you don't need to continue asking as if you wish; I will be here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
YOU SLIPPING ON YOUR FREUDIAN AGAIN QUOTE: “Reading the Bible only as literal would make things easier to understand, but the drawback is the application of knowledge becomes extremely limited to the exact and literal circumstance, rather than abstract and multi-applicable knowledge.”PRAISE JESUS! You actually ADMITTED that in reading the Bible LITERALLY would make things easier, where there is no drawback whatsoever because look how outright STUPID you have made yourself in taking the position that one is not to read the Bible literally! LOL!!!
You are misunderstanding my position. I did not say we must interpret all of the Bible, but that we must not read the whole scripture literally.
As I pointed out before, I believe parables and some other parts of the Bible were not intended to be literally, while others literally.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Listen up you Satanic minion of Satan, I haven ’t even started with you yet, where Jesus’ TRUE WORDS will continue to bury your Satanic modus operandi from now and into the future, do you understand?CHAIN UP, because Jesus and I have great embarrassments for you in the near future, whereas if you have the balls, create a thread where you will take your pathetic Satanic answers to questions about the Bible, and I WILL BE THERE in making you the continued Bible inept fool of this Religion forum, understood?NEXT PERSON WITHIN THIS FORUM THAT IS TURNING SCARED LIKE “CRITICAL-TIM” TO JESUS’ TRUE LITERAL WORDS, WILL BE …?
Your increasing insults give me a bit of perspective of the level of your agitation, making me believe you are the one becoming disturbed.
Moreover, I am glad to hear you are thinking of me being scared, since after all I have shown no signs, meaning it was in your imagination.
I then ask myself why you would imagine me running, and I believe it is because you may be running out of options.
This, of course, is speculation, which could be entirely false. - I'll be here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
YOUR PITIFUL NOW ON YOUR BACK FOOT QUOTE BECAUSE OF YOUR BIBLE STUPIDITY: “How can you call yourself "a TRUE Christian who follows God's words to the letter" if you must use your erroneous human interpretations to understand their meanings, as you lack a God given dictionary?”HUH? My what interpretations? HELLO!!! I have NO INTERPRETATIONS when I follow Jesus’ direct and literal words, whereas, IT IS YOU, that have a “plethora” of ungodly interpretations that you Satanically use to respond to my direct literal words of Jesus! How outright Bible Stupid can you get?
Even literal words are an interpretation as they need a dictionary to interpret the meaning behind the non-inherent meanings of words.
I say again, with what not God given dictionary have you chosen with your human judgement to interpret the words of God?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
YOUR FEEBLE SATANIC STATEMENT TO ME RELATIVE TO THE MANY BIBLE VERSIONS: “Considering the numerous English Bible versions available, how can we discern which ones represent the direct words of God without human interpretation and establish a dependable dictionary standard to evaluate these translations, considering the diversity of definitions?”The bottom line Satanic Bible fool, is that the King James 1611 Bible is the closest to being inspired by Jesus as God, whereas every other newer version are perversions, which equals YOU in trying to rewrite Jesus’ literal and true words in the 1611 KJV!
You insist I am a "Satanic Bible Fool" for asking a stupid question, yet you fail to provide evidence for this so called "simple question," why is that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
YOU SLIPPING ON YOUR FREUDIAN QUOTE: “This verse is from the second letter of Peter, one of the apostles of Jesus Christ. He wrote this letter to warn his readers about false teachers who would distort the truth and lead people astray.”BINGO! As shown in this discussion, your quote fully describes YOU because of you trying to take Jesus’ LITERAL WORDS away from Him! Thank you! LOL!YOUR QUOTE WHERE YOU ARE NOT SURE OF YOURSELF, THEN YOUR QUOTE IS MOOT!: “Therefore, based on these arguments, it seems more likely that Peter is talking about the origin of prophecy, not its interpretation, in 2 Peter 1:20.”WHAT DID YOU JUST SAY; “It seems more likely ….” where you are NOT sure of yourself, but still you want your statement to say that what Peter said in the following passage doesn’t relate to someone's interpretation???!!! ROFLOL!!!!
Why did you ignore my correlation I drew between other parts of the Bible and instead pointed at my open mindedness as to escape the question?
You provided absolutely no evidence in this post to counter my argument, please do in the next one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
YOUR BLASPHEMOUS QUOTE SAYING THAT PETER WAS WRONG IN CALLING JESUS GOD!!!: “One possible interpretation is that Peter is affirming the deity of Jesus Christ, and that he is using a grammatical construction known as the Granville Sharp rule.”Fuck the Granville Sharp rule because Peter was talking to the ignorant goat herder Christians at the time relative to the primitive Bronze and Iron Age you ignorant Bible fool! Then your minion of Satan MO comes out and can actually say; “One possible interpretation ….” WHAT? The passage in question is shown below in its LITERAL FORM that states Jesus is God, period!“Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours.” (2 Peter 1:1)
The rule is not the point; the point is during that "and" could refer to both as two entities, or to one with two attributes.
Therefore, your claim of one is not of God's words but your own.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
YOUR QUOTE IN SHOWING THE BIBLE CONTRADICTS ITSELF!!!: “Therefore, I ask again, why were many women, fewer than men, preaching or speaking God's words to a congregation composing of both men and women, and God didn't punish them? Specifically, the women I asked about, including Aaron's sister.”Since you are blatantly showing the Bible contradicts itself with your quote above relative to 1 Timothy 2:11 in explicitly showing that women are NOT to teach and just STFU, then you must be so proud to point this anomaly out to everyone, GOOD FOR YOU as you will burn in hell upon your demise!Jesus as God didn’t punish them Bible fool because Christians are always forgiven: “To him all the prophets bear witness that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.” (Acts 10:43) DUH!Since Satan has obviously sent you to this Religion Forum to disrupt Jesus’ DIRECT WORDS, how do you want to Satanically reinterpret Jesus’ LITERAL WORDS again in the following passage:"The women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church." (1 Corinthians 14:34-35)
I was asking a relevant question about God's Holy scriptures, which I assume God intended us to read being it is in the Bible. It is you who have claimed it is contradicting itself; on the other hand, I have inquired how it can be made sense of rather than assuming it is God's flaw, as you have done. Instead, try considering how he did not contradict himself, perhaps contextual??
By the way, the verse was Micah 6:4, which says:
For I brought you up from the land of Egypt and redeemed you from the house of slavery. I sent Moses to lead you, also Aaron and Miriam.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Ambiguity in the Bible serves as a deliberate choice to make the text broadly applicable. By not specifying every detail, the scripture becomes a source of wisdom and guidance that can adapt to various situations and cultures. On the other hand, precision, while providing clarity, often lacks context. When rules or guidance are too precise, they might only be applicable in very specific circumstances, limiting their usefulness.
Therefore, a balance between ambiguity and precision is essential. Ambiguity allows for the universality and adaptability of the message, while precision provides clarity when necessary. This balanced approach ensures that the Bible can offer guidance that is both clear and relevant, no matter the context or situation. It allows readers to apply the teachings of the scripture to their lives while considering the specific circumstances they face, striking a harmonious equilibrium between clarity and adaptability.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Reading the Bible only as literal would make things easier to understand, but the drawback is the application of knowledge becomes extremely limited to the exact and literal circumstance, rather than abstract and multi-applicable knowledge.
In Matthew 13:10-17 (NIV), Jesus' response to his disciples' question about why he spoke in parables is as follows:
"10 The disciples came to him and asked, 'Why do you speak to the people in parables?' 11 He replied, 'Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. 12 Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. 13 This is why I speak to them in parables: 'Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand.' 14 In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: 'You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving. 15 For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise, they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.' 16 But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear. 17 For truly I tell you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.'"
"10 The disciples came to him and asked, 'Why do you speak to the people in parables?' 11 He replied, 'Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. 12 Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. 13 This is why I speak to them in parables: 'Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand.' 14 In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: 'You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving. 15 For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise, they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.' 16 But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear. 17 For truly I tell you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.'"
In this passage, Jesus explains that he uses parables to convey deeper spiritual truths to those who have the capacity to understand them, particularly his disciples. He contrasts those who have receptive hearts and minds to receive the message with those who have closed themselves off from understanding. The use of parables serves both to reveal and conceal the message, depending on the spiritual readiness of the listener.
To hear without hearing?
To see without seeing?
He could only mean those who don't wish to understand won't understand, implying that the meaning was not explicit or on the surface. Therefore, Jesus employed parables not as literal, straightforward teachings but as metaphorical and interpretive stories meant to engage listeners, encourage reflection, and convey profound spiritual insights. The metaphors and symbolism in parables often concealed the deeper meanings, making them accessible to those with a receptive and open-hearted approach to understanding.
I don't claim the entire scripture is interpretable, but at least some of it was meant to be, making a strictly literal approach ineffective to understand with our eyes and ears open as described above.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
How much further must I go, and are you willing?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
You might even believe in a High Priest who conveys God's direct words and specifies the dictionary that God intends us to use. However, even if you have a Bible and a dictionary selected by God's words through a High Priest, you would still need to interpret the words using the definitions provided in the dictionary. This is because the words themselves lack inherent meaning and must undergo interpretation to acquire significance, underscoring the continued necessity of interpretation, aligning with my counter stance in comment 57, recited below.
Therefore, based on these arguments, it seems more likely that Peter is talking about the origin of prophecy, not its interpretation, in 2 Peter 1:20. However, this does not mean that interpretation is unimportant or irrelevant. On the contrary, Peter also warns his readers that some people twist the Scriptures to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:16). He urges them to be diligent and careful in studying and applying the Scriptures, and to avoid being carried away by error (2 Peter 3:17-18). He also reminds them that they have been given everything they need for life and godliness through the knowledge of God and Jesus Christ (2 Peter 1:3). Therefore, as Christians, we should seek to understand and obey the Scriptures, which are God’s word to us, and which point us to Jesus Christ, who is God’s Word made flesh (John 1:14).
Ultimately, the fact you need a dictionary in the first place is evident that you must interpret the words.
Your choice to interpret them literally was not explicitly instructed by God but chosen with your human judgement.
Your accusations contain inherent contradictions. On one hand, you stress the importance of not interpreting, advocating for strict literal adherence. Yet, on the other hand, you insist on taking God's word literally, deeming any deviation as blasphemy. Is this not, in itself, a form of human judgment not explicitly dictated in the scripture? One might argue that such a stance, even if implied, delves into the realm of interpretation, moving beyond the domain of explicit and literal words. It becomes clear that these two positions cannot coexist harmoniously without inherent tensions and contradictions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
I am a TRUE Christian that follows our Jewish Jesus’ inspired words as God to the letter as He intended all of His Jewish Christians to do
How can you call yourself "a TRUE Christian who follows God's words to the letter" if you must use your erroneous human interpretations to understand their meanings, as you lack a God given dictionary?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
To make this simple I will list your options from comment 59, as recited below.
Here is my question to you:Considering the numerous English Bible versions available, how can we discern which ones represent the direct words of God without human interpretation and establish a dependable dictionary standard to evaluate these translations, considering the diversity of definitions?
Here are your options:
- All translations are the Holy word of God.
- Only the exact words God spoke are the Holy word of God.
Option 1: All translations are the Holy word of God.
Verbal plenary inspiration: This view holds that every word of the original languages of the Bible was inspired by God, and that the Bible is without error in all matters of faith and practice. This view also holds that the best way to translate the Bible is to preserve the literal and grammatical features of the original languages as much as possible, while making minimal adjustments for readability and clarity. This view assumes that the original languages are the most accurate and reliable expression of God’s word, and that any deviation from them may compromise the meaning and authority of the Scripture. Some examples of translations that follow this view are the King James Version, the New American Standard Bible, and the English Standard Version.
- Translation and Interpretation: This scenario holds true if translations are considered to preserve the Holy word of God. However, it's essential to recognize that translation inherently involves interpretation. In essence, translation demands a profound grasp of both the source and target languages, as well as the ability to discern the author's intent, cultural nuances, and contextual aspects of the text. Consequently, every translation encompasses an element of interpretation to faithfully convey the original text's essence and meaning in the target language. By qualifying translations which are interpretations as retaining the Holy Word of God you would be contradicting your stance that interpretation fails to retain God's Holy word.
- The Translator's Prophetic Role: One potential solution to this dilemma is to believe that every translator acted as a prophet of God, ensuring an exact transmission of His words in the new translation.
- Choosing a Dictionary for Interpretation: However, this raises the question of which dictionary should be used to interpret the words based on their definitions, all without introducing human judgment not explicitly stated by God's words.
Ultimately, to believe that all translations are the Holy Word of God, two paths emerge. The first entails accepting that translations are valid, and since translations inherently involve interpretations, interpretations must also be valid. This, however, contradicts the initial stance against interpretation's validity. The second path involves believing that all translators were prophets through whom God conveyed His exact words. However, this raises the question: which dictionary was intended by God, or are humans to decide how to interpret His word? Consequently, it becomes evident that interpretation is an integral component of the assertion that all translations constitute the Holy Word of God.
Option 2: Only the exact words God spoke are the Holy word of God.
Dynamic plenary inspiration: This view holds that every thought or concept of the original languages of the Bible was inspired by God, and that the Bible is without error in all matters of faith and practice. This view also holds that the best way to translate the Bible is to convey the meaning and function of the original languages in a natural and idiomatic way, while making necessary changes for cultural and contextual relevance. This view assumes that the original languages are not necessarily superior or inferior to other languages, and that God’s word can be faithfully communicated in different ways, as long as the message and purpose of the Scripture are maintained. Some examples of translations that follow this view are the New International Version, the New Living Translation, and the GOD’S WORD Translation.
- In English Translation and Interpretation: If you only know English and are unfamiliar with the original languages of the Bible (such as Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek), you're reading an English translation. As previously discussed, translation inherently involves interpretation. If this premise holds true, then the words you quote in English could be seen as invalidated by your own assertion that they cannot be interpreted. The paradox arises: How can one prove the invalidity of interpretations when that very claim is an interpretation itself?
- Multilingual Expertise in English Discussions: Alternatively, if you possess knowledge of these original languages but choose to participate in an English context (assuming others only know English), it could be argued that you're not reading an interpretation but rather facilitating interpretation for the benefit of those who understand English.
- Choosing a Dictionary for Interpretation: However, this still leaves the challenge of selecting a dictionary or standard for interpretation. Since all words require interpretation based on their meanings, maintaining a strict and literal stance on the Bible raises the question of which dictionary should be used. Advocating for a particular dictionary without direct scriptural guidance may be viewed as an erroneous human judgment. It involves choosing how to interpret God's words without explicit assurance from the scriptures, potentially conflicting with the belief in their divine origin.
Ultimately, to firmly believe that only the precise words spoken by God are His direct and holy word implies a significant realization. Reading the Bible in English, being a translation of His exact words, is, in essence, an interpretation rather than the direct conveyance of His words. Paradoxically, this understanding calls into question the validity of the verses presented, as they inadvertently become invalidated interpretations according to their own conclusion, resulting in self-contradiction. The alternative path arises in the event you possess the knowledge to read the Bible's original languages. Nevertheless, this path also presents a formidable challenge: determining the intended dictionary for interpreting the meaning of the words inscribed in the Bible.
Of course, there is option three, but it would directly contradict your claim in the first place.
Paraphrastic inspiration: This view holds that every idea or message of the original languages of the Bible was inspired by God, but that the Bible may contain errors or contradictions in matters of history, science, or culture. This view also holds that the best way to translate the Bible is to restate or summarize the original languages in one’s own words, while adding explanations or interpretations that may enhance the understanding or application of the Scripture. This view assumes that the original languages are not sufficient or clear enough for modern readers, and that God’s word can be improved or clarified by human creativity and insight. Some examples of translations that follow this view are The Living Bible, The Message, and The Passion Translation.
In conclusion: All roads lead to Rome (Human interpretation of definitions not explicitly stated by God)
Please don't avoid addressing this unless you concede. What do you think?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
That is fascinating. I can try to explain the psychological phenomenon of near-death experiences (NDEs), which are the conscious, semi-conscious or recollected experiences of someone who is approaching or has temporarily begun the process of dying. Remember this is merely a scientific perspective.
NDEs are not a figment of the imagination, but rather a result of changes in brain function during the process of dying. NDEs vary from case to case, but some common elements include:
- Feelings of peacefulness or serenity
- Vivid imagery, such as bright light, movement through a tunnel, or visions of events from one’s past
- Out-of-body experiences, in which one feels removed from one’s physical body
- Encounters with other beings, such as loved ones or anonymous entities perceived as angels
Some people may interpret these experiences in religious or spiritual terms, such as going to heaven or hell, meeting God or the devil, or having a life review. However, these interpretations are influenced by one’s personal beliefs, culture, and expectations.
NDEs can have profound effects on the experiencers’ lives. Some common after-effects include:
- Loss of the fear of death and a strengthened belief in the afterlife
- A new awareness of meaning and purpose in one’s life
- A new sense of self with increased self-esteem
- Changes in values, priorities, and relationships
- Increased interest in spirituality and altruism
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
How many times do I have to Bible Slap Silly®️ Critical-Tim before he too goes into hiding like Miss Tradesecret had to do, remember? LOL!
You think I would hide? No, I wouldn't let you off that easy. You have quite an untraditional perspective, with subpar evidence in support.
If it were simply myself, I would have left, since I have no hope in teaching you. But this is my forum, and you shall see me to the end.
May the better theory withstand criticism, and remain as guidance to all watching. I could only hope we both do our stances justice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
How many English Bible translations exist:
Based on some sources, there are approximately 500 English versions of the complete Bible that have been written over the last few hundred years. Of those, nearly 100 versions are currently in print. Some of the most popular and widely used English translations are the King James Version, the New International Version, the English Standard Version, and the New Living Translation.
If we include incomplete translations, such as those that only cover some books or sections of the Bible, the number would be much higher. According to Wikipedia, there are over 450 English translations of at least some portion of the Bible. Some of these translations are very old and no longer in print, while others are very recent and still in progress. Some of these translations are also paraphrases, which are not literal translations but rather rewordings or interpretations of the original text.
The reason why there are so many English translations of the Bible is that language changes over time, and different translators have different goals and methods. Some translations aim to be as faithful as possible to the original languages of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, while others try to make the text more understandable and relevant for modern readers. Some translations also reflect different theological perspectives or preferences of certain denominations or groups.
How many English dictionaries have been written since the time of the first English biblical translations:
According to one source, the first complete Bible printed in the English language was Myles Coverdale’s Bible in 1535. It contained all 80 books of the Bible, including the Apocrypha. The first purely English alphabetical dictionary was A Table Alphabeticall, written in 1604 by Robert Cawdrey. Therefore, we can assume that the first English dictionary was written about 70 years after the first English Bible.
However, it is not easy to count how many English dictionaries have been written since then, because there are different types and categories of dictionaries, such as general, specialized, historical, etymological, regional, slang, etc. Also, some dictionaries are revised or updated over time, and some are no longer in print or use. Therefore, the number of dictionaries may vary depending on how one defines and counts them.
One possible way to estimate the number of English dictionaries is to look at some online catalogs or databases that list them. For example, the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) website has a page that lists over 1,000 dictionaries of English and its varieties3. Another website, called Onelook.com, has a page that lists over 1,100 general and specialized English dictionaries. However, these lists may not be complete or accurate, and they may include some duplicates or overlaps.
Therefore, based on these sources, we can roughly guess that there are at least a few thousand English dictionaries that have been written since the first of the Bible translations to English. However, this is not a precise or definitive answer, and you should do more research and consult with reliable sources if you want to learn more.
Here is my question to you:
Considering the numerous English Bible versions available, how can we discern which ones represent the direct words of God without human interpretation and establish a dependable dictionary standard to evaluate these translations, considering the diversity of definitions?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
How many times do I have to Bible Slap Silly®️ Critical-Tim before he too goes into hiding like Miss Tradesecret had to do, remember? LOL!
It seems you have a failing grasp of the position in which we stand. As of yet, we have both provided evidence for our cases, much of which is unsettled. I have already put down more than one of your accusations, such as your comment that "Tradesecret" made a stupid comment.
I have also gone on the inquiring stance of challenging your assumption, many of which you disputed with verses, but you never reconciled with my verses, leaving both our stances vulnerable. Only time can show who, if either, has the more resilient theory.
I cannot stress this enough, no matter the quotes and verses you provide, until you make sense of the one, I provide we are at a draw, since neither can reconcile the others stance. That said, I have been learning quite a lot about the verses you provided, we should have some interesting comments going forward.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Do the simple math, whereas the LITERAL reading of the Bible determines what the author intended to communicate. Many today like YOU will read a verse of disturbing Scripture and then give their own definitions to the words, phrases, or paragraphs, ignoring the context and the author’s intent and going directly against 2 Peter 1:20! But this is not what Jesus as God intended, which is why Jesus' inspired words tells us to correctly handle the Word of truth whether it be disturbing or not! “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.” (2Timothy 2:15)Critical-Tim, before you BLASPHEME the word of Jesus as God AGAIN, always remember these following passages to prevent you from being as Bible Stupid as Miss Tradesecret!“Knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation.” (2 Peter 1:20)
"Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.“ (Proverbs 30:5)
This verse is from the second letter of Peter, one of the apostles of Jesus Christ. He wrote this letter to warn his readers about false teachers who would distort the truth and lead people astray. He also wanted to encourage them to grow in their faith and knowledge of the Lord.
In this verse, Peter is talking about the nature and origin of prophecy. Prophecy is a special revelation from God that foretells or declares something about the future or the present. Prophecy is not a human invention or opinion, but a divine message that comes from God himself.
There are different ways to understand what Peter means by “interpretation” in this verse. Though many people think that he is referring to how prophecy is produced or originated by those who speak it or write it. In this view, Peter is saying that no one can make up prophecy by their own imagination or will, but they must speak or write as they are moved by the Holy Spirit. This view emphasizes the source and authority of prophecy.
One argument for this interpretation is that it is consistent with the way prophecy is described in other parts of the Bible. For example, in 2 Timothy 3:16, Paul says that “all Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness”. The word “God-breathed” (in Greek, “theopneustos”) implies that God is the source and origin of Scripture, and that he inspired the human authors to write his words. Similarly, in 2 Samuel 23:2, David says that “the Spirit of the Lord spoke through me; his word was on my tongue”. This shows that David recognized that his words were not his own, but God’s, and that he was moved by the Holy Spirit to speak them.
Another argument for this interpretation is that it fits better with the context and purpose of Peter’s letter. Peter wrote this letter to warn his readers about false teachers who would distort the truth and lead people astray. He also wanted to encourage them to grow in their faith and knowledge of the Lord. In order to do this, he appealed to his own eyewitness testimony of Jesus’ glory (2 Peter 1:16-18), and to the prophetic word of Scripture (2 Peter 1:19-21). He wanted to show his readers that they had a reliable and authoritative source of truth in the Scriptures, which were not based on human opinions or inventions, but on God’s revelation and inspiration. He wanted them to trust the Scriptures as a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in their hearts (2 Peter 1:19).
Therefore, based on these arguments, it seems more likely that Peter is talking about the origin of prophecy, not its interpretation, in 2 Peter 1:20. However, this does not mean that interpretation is unimportant or irrelevant. On the contrary, Peter also warns his readers that some people twist the Scriptures to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:16). He urges them to be diligent and careful in studying and applying the Scriptures, and to avoid being carried away by error (2 Peter 3:17-18). He also reminds them that they have been given everything they need for life and godliness through the knowledge of God and Jesus Christ (2 Peter 1:3). Therefore, as Christians, we should seek to understand and obey the Scriptures, which are God’s word to us, and which point us to Jesus Christ, who is God’s Word made flesh (John 1:14).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
HELLO? You cannot use the term "Jesus and God" in a duality, because Jesus is God you dumb-ass Bible ignorant fool!“Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours.” (2 Peter 1:1)
The verse you quoted is from the second letter of Peter, one of the apostles of Jesus Christ. He addresses his letter to those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with his own by the righteousness of God and Savior Jesus Christ1. This phrase has been interpreted in different ways by different Christian traditions and scholars.
One possible interpretation is that Peter is affirming the deity of Jesus Christ, and that he is using a grammatical construction known as the Granville Sharp rule. This rule states that when two nouns of the same case are connected by the word “and” (in Greek, “kai”), and the first noun has the definite article (“the”) but the second does not, they both refer to the same person or thing. In this case, the phrase “our God and Savior Jesus Christ” would mean that Jesus Christ is both our God and our Savior.
Another possible interpretation is that Peter is not applying the Granville Sharp rule, but rather using a common Jewish way of speaking about God and his anointed one (in Hebrew, “Messiah”; in Greek, “Christ”). In this case, the phrase “our God and Savior Jesus Christ” would mean that God is our God and Jesus Christ is our Savior, who was sent by God4. This interpretation would not necessarily deny the deity of Jesus Christ, but rather emphasize his role as the Messiah and the mediator between God and humanity.
There are other interpretations as well, but these are two of the most common ones. Ultimately, the meaning of this verse cannot be known for certain and remains a complex and controversial topic in Christian theology.
What do you think?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
There is no need to quote you. It is clear you have expressed your belief that when the Bible says all of God's words are flawless means he always speak literally.
I find this hard to believe, especially since much of the Bible speaks in parables. Do you think the parables were to be taken literally too?
It reminds me of what Jesus told the disciples was the reason he spoke in parables. Do you know?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Addressing your ungodly post #29; https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9913/posts/4110451. Furthermore, don't forget to address Tradesecret as a "FEMALE" as shown in this lin under her gender: https://www.imagebam.com/view/MEGZNA4. Therefore, "she" is not even supposed to be on this forum as a female to begin with in teaching or to exercise the authority over the superior man, so saith our God Jesus' inspired words herewith: "Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain silent." (1 Timothy 2:11)YOUR UNGODLY QUOTE AGAIN TO MY GODLY QUOTE ABOVE: " Perhaps it relative to the time and culture, and perhaps not. It could mean that a true Christian women should refrain from teaching, but I didnt see anywhere that tells men to stop women from preaching; it might have been implicit.MY RESPONSE TO YOUR BIBLE STUPIDISMS®️ TO YOUR QUOTE ABOVE: WTF did you just say?!!! Then in your pathetic thinking, if women are not to teach and just STFU in that time and culture only, then we're not to follow the Ten Commandments, love our serial killer God, forgive others, to love your enemies, and ask forgiveness of our sins, etc., because these entities were only to be followed in the Bible time and culture ONLY?! ROFLOL!!YOU have yet to address your dumbfounded statement of women not to teach relative to the then culture, and the ramifications of such a stupid statement of yours where it would include not following the specified additional rules shown! Do YOU have an explanation of why you ran away from explaining yourself relative to those other rules listed?
I asked you a direct question in regard to your shared verse to best formulate my answer. It was not my intention for you to avoid addressing it and assume I didn't want to respond with my uneducated guess. I need more information to make a logical and conclusive decision.
Therefore, I ask again, why were many women, fewer than men, preaching or speaking God's words to a congregation composing of both men and women, and God didn't punish them? Specifically, the women I asked about, including Aaron's sister.
Aaron’s sister in the Bible was named Miriam, and she was a prophetess who led the Israelite women in singing and dancing after the Exodus from Egypt She also spoke God’s words to the people, along with Moses and Aaron, as it is written: “For I brought you up out of the land of Egypt and redeemed you from the house of slavery, and I sent before you Moses, Aaron, and Miriam.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
I find insulting as an emotional byproduct; from anger it is often insufficiency, though it can also occur of pride in superiority.
I think anger is never the answer, but I don't disregard emotions in general.
I think sadness is a necessary emotion that results in realigning one's thoughts with reality, while anger is in resentment toward the structure of reality.
In essence, sadness is when realising we are insufficient and we must correct ourselves, I see this as noble, since it requires humility, but anger toward reality itself is out of arrogance, since anger looks at how reality isn't what we wish instead of looking for what we could change.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
When you say you would suggest that a God is omni-literal, do you mean always literal?
Additionally, do you think that my explanation in comments 36 and 41 is sufficient in proving the Christian God is not always literal?
Finally, what do you believe as a result of correlating the answers of these two questions?
I'm just trying to get a better grasp of your thoughts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
One possible proof that Jesus and God are not always literal with their words is the use of parables in the Bible. Parables are stories that illustrate a moral or spiritual lesson, but they are not meant to be taken literally. They use figurative language, such as metaphors, similes, and hyperbole, to convey a deeper meaning. Jesus often used parables to teach his followers and to challenge his opponents. For example, in Matthew 13:3-9, Jesus tells the parable of the sower, who sows seeds on different types of soil. The seeds represent the word of God, and the soil represents the hearts of the people who hear it. Some people are like the rocky or thorny soil, who do not receive or keep the word of God. Others are like the good soil, who produce fruit by obeying and spreading the word of God. This parable is not a literal description of farming, but a symbolic representation of how people respond to God’s message.
Another example of a parable is in Luke 15:11-32, where Jesus tells the story of the prodigal son. The son asks his father for his share of the inheritance and leaves home to squander it on sinful living. He ends up in poverty and misery, and decides to return to his father and ask for forgiveness. The father welcomes him back with joy and celebrates his return. Meanwhile, the older son, who stayed faithful to his father, becomes angry and jealous. He refuses to join the celebration and complains that his father never rewarded him for his obedience. The father tells him that he loves both sons equally and that he should rejoice that his brother was lost and is found. This parable is not a literal account of a family dispute, but an allegory of God’s grace and mercy towards sinners who repent, and his call for righteous people to be compassionate and forgiving.
These are some examples of how Jesus and God used parables to communicate their message in a non-literal way. Parables are a common feature of many religions and cultures, and they are a powerful way of teaching through stories. However, they require interpretation and understanding, and they cannot be taken at face value. Therefore, we can conclude that not all the words of Jesus and God are meant to be taken literally, but sometimes they use figurative language to express a deeper truth.
Do you still believe that all God’s words are irrefutably literal and not expressing a deeper meaning, and why?
Created: