Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Do you agree with correcting the problem (over conflicts with the written scriptures)
by seeking agreement on the true meaning?
Not really, I think it's pointless. I think we already know the true meaning, as I said before, ad copy to sell a religion. Which wasn't my point here anyway; the point was the distinction between the actual words and actions of Jesus, versus what we're told are the words and actions of Jesus -- as told by third parties with agendas. The source is important.
In the case of the Constitution, there's no doubt what the words say. We have the original, written down. And it's not selling anything.
It boils down to a trust or distrust in God's ability to fully reveal His truth and His will to His creation. If you don't believe that an all-powerful God is able then the conversation is over. What else can anyone say? The alternative is to believe that God IS able to reveal His will and that He did so regardless of all the obstacles that would hinder His goal. I believe He did exactly what He wanted to do.
As for "selling" a religion, the same can be said of ANY religion.
But, as we all know, the only religion today to receive constant and emphatic frontal attacks is Christianity.
But who's to say that Judaism wasn't "sold" in a similar manner? What makes Judaism more acceptable than Christianity? Who's the authority that determines or reaches that conclusion?
Do you agree with correcting the problem (over conflicts with the written scriptures)
by seeking agreement on the true meaning?
Not really, I think it's pointless. I think we already know the true meaning, as I said before, ad copy to sell a religion. Which wasn't my point here anyway; the point was the distinction between the actual words and actions of Jesus, versus what we're told are the words and actions of Jesus -- as told by third parties with agendas. The source is important.
In the case of the Constitution, there's no doubt what the words say. We have the original, written down. And it's not selling anything.
He actually said his work would be carried on by the church, and he appointed St. Peter to begin the task along with his teaching disciples. Part of a belief system is trust in the Word of Christ, and he passed his Word onto his immediate followers to carry it everywhere they went to share the cup of his salvation. Believers know that his yoke is easy and his burden, light. The approach is to be reinforced by trust in God's goodness, love, and salvation, to do our best and to leave to heaven the rest. It's a faith thing. As a believer, I have faith in the principles of Jesus Christ, who taught God's ways by his recitations and examples of the understanding of Godly things that people seemed to be missing out on through misunderstanding and disobedience. It's only human to review introspectively and to repair human mistakes we make by loving justice, doing what is right, and walking humbly. He seemed to have faith in people that we would know what to do when confronted if we pray for each other and channel our thinking through the Holy scriptures our early church fathers assembled as the most important things to know in a comprehensive book that was easy to understand in layman's terms.
Not really, I think it's pointless. I think we already know the true meaning, as I said before, ad copy to sell a religion. Which wasn't my point here anyway; the point was the distinction between the actual words and actions of Jesus, versus what we're told are the words and actions of Jesus -- as told by third parties with agendas. The source is important.
In the case of the Constitution, there's no doubt what the words say. We have the original, written down. And it's not selling anything.
Indeed, and that's a big difference.
As for the other quote about correcting problems with scriptures, would that not automatically imply or infer that the scriptures are NOT infallible?
I usually get a little nervous over the phrase "true meaning", [MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION] - how many wars in our planet's history have been started because one side was just soooooo convinced that it and it alone knew/had the truth???
Hi Stat
A. with the Bible/Christianity/Jesus/God
what I mean by true meaning is that it is Universal where everyone already agrees, freely and naturally, by the very nature of being universal truth. So it is not forced, it is not something where one person or group has the right answer and everyone follows them. The process of reaching universal truth and understanding is a collaboration, where everyone contributes and comes to their own understanding and realizes it is the same. So it is universal, inclusive, without coercion. Everyone's knowledge is part of that body of truth, so there is no competition to make one group right and exclude others.
With Christianity I posted before, that Christ Jesus means "Restorative Justice" or "Justice with Mercy" -- there is no monopoly on that concept, it is universal and brings peace and justice to all who receive and follow that spirit regardless which laws we relate under. by "Restorative Justice" all relations are made whole, and good faith is restored. There is no violence, bullying, or other abuse, no coercion needed.
B. As for the Constitution
No, we do not all agree on the spirit of the laws, even though we have the original.
Look at the conflicts over
* the Second Amendment where people still do not agree who has what authority
* the First and Fourteenth Amendment where people do not respect each other's beliefs.
We still do not respect or include each other or 'all people' equally regardless of CREED.
We still discriminate by voting against people we disagree with, seeking to censor or exclude,
so we do not respect due process of laws or equal protection of laws; but our
political system is abused to bully over others and compete for dominance.
That is NOT respecting including or protecting "other people of other views" EQUALLY.
Similarly people of different denominations do not always treat and include
all people as "equal neighbors" under those laws either!
So both church and state have the same problems.
Which is no surprise, since the PEOPLE make up the church
as the PEOPLE make up the government. The same problems
would affect both realms, both made of the same people.
Either way, we need to reach agreement on how the laws apply to us
and how we are supposed to enforce the laws, in order to unite as
a harmonious body of people, whether under church laws or state laws.
the people and the government are supposed to be one.
not one party or one side of each issue trying to overrule the other.
You are right to be WARY of people trying to impose "one right way"
but unfortunately we have this going on now with political parties using
majority rule for that very purpose. We should all be aware this is against
Constitutional principles and ethics, and seek to enforce equality under law.
In September 2012, Harvard Divinity School professor Karen King announced the discovery of a Coptic (ancient Egyptian) gospel text on a papyrus fragment that contained the phrase "Jesus said to them, 'My wife . . .' " The world took notice. The possibility that Jesus was married would prompt a radical reconsideration of the New Testament and biblical scholarship.
Do you agree with correcting the problem (over conflicts with the written scriptures)
by seeking agreement on the true meaning?
Not really, I think it's pointless. I think we already know the true meaning, as I said before, ad copy to sell a religion. Which wasn't my point here anyway; the point was the distinction between the actual words and actions of Jesus, versus what we're told are the words and actions of Jesus -- as told by third parties with agendas. The source is important.
In the case of the Constitution, there's no doubt what the words say. We have the original, written down. And it's not selling anything.
Indeed, and that's a big difference.
As for the other quote about correcting problems with scriptures, would that not automatically imply or infer that the scriptures are NOT infallible?
I usually get a little nervous over the phrase "true meaning", [MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION] - how many wars in our planet's history have been started because one side was just soooooo convinced that it and it alone knew/had the truth???
and I have a dick!
BEWARE!!! REPEATING BLASPHEMOUS LIED FROM THE pit of hell is NOT a smart thing to do,best you count the cost!
PERSONAL ATTACKS!!! = A SIGN OF GUILT AND SHAME!!! and you??? JESUS SAYS TO BELIEVERS= If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. 19"If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you. John 15:18-19
and I have a.....
opinions vary
and I have a.....
opinions vary
Really????
In a thread about god?
Let's try to be a tad more respectful.
