|
Post by BobWilliston on Oct 21, 2014 3:48:01 GMT -5
Ironically you will learn much more about this aspect of Christianity from history than from religious studies. I don't know what your "religious education" involved -- it could have been anything from doctrine to theology to history to proselytizing. Depending on the level of interest any denomination has in the education most often determines the emphasis in such education. Actually it included parts of the New Testament - Matthew, Mark, Luke, John,The acts of the Apostles and The life and teachings of Christ. The Old Testament was not included.That was done afterwards. It sounds to me like a pretty typical introductory course to mainstream Christian tradition. I would assume that there was nothing in the course about the such things as the politics involved in how Paul's theology got adopted by the church -- centuries after his death. Or how the doctrine of original sin found its way into Christian doctrine. I could go on for hours, but most people don't really want to know anything about it. This is all history, and history from a purely objective standpoint makes no judgment about theology -- but the facts of history can certainly discredit a lot of what Christians believe. Was this a college credit course, or who was sponsoring it? It also sounds like the kind of high school course that is intended to familiarize people with the Bible but not offend the general public.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Oct 21, 2014 4:11:25 GMT -5
You don't know your history. Paul was the first great division -- actually, the founder of "Christ"ianity. Jesus was never a Christian. yes we know He wasn't a christian but we also weren't talking about Paul I know you weren't talking about Paul. I was just telling you that it was Paul who preached "Christ", not the apostles, and that particular difference was only one reason for the estrangement between Paul and the apostles. There were other reasons too. Jewish Jesus followers never called themselves Christians until they were forced to assimilate with those who accepted Paul's gospel. That's what I said. It's clearly documented if you read the Bible without any knowledge of Christian tradition. Christians learn what Christians believe and then proof text the Bible to make their argument. No, I said nothing at all like that. Jesus and Paul each introduced themselves, but not each other. Jesus introduced himself, he certainly did -- but JESUS NEVER called himself the "Christ". I accept that he probably considered himself "a" messiah, but never "the" Christ. As a matter of fact, Jesus probably didn't know about or ever hear about a Christ in his lifetime. Paul introduced himself too. Paul introduced himself as a teacher of the Christ -- Jesus never told Paul that he (Jesus) was the Christ because Paul had never met Jesus. Paul preached on his own for a long time before he even met with the apostles, and even then Paul and the apostles didn't have a great relationship. Maybe you don't think that was a division -- I do.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2014 5:00:45 GMT -5
Actually it included parts of the New Testament - Matthew, Mark, Luke, John,The acts of the Apostles and The life and teachings of Christ. The Old Testament was not included.That was done afterwards. It sounds to me like a pretty typical introductory course to mainstream Christian tradition. I would assume that there was nothing in the course about the such things as the politics involved in how Paul's theology got adopted by the church -- centuries after his death. Or how the doctrine of original sin found its way into Christian doctrine. I could go on for hours, but most people don't really want to know anything about it. This is all history, and history from a purely objective standpoint makes no judgment about theology -- but the facts of history can certainly discredit a lot of what Christians believe. Was this a college credit course, or who was sponsoring it? It also sounds like the kind of high school course that is intended to familiarize people with the Bible but not offend the general public. You are correct it was the syllabus for high schools in the UK and dependencies ( colonies).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2014 5:08:40 GMT -5
Virgo, I must say this in your favor , you do know how to talk the talk, you must be an angel on earth, if you are also walking the walk. We all sin and come short of the glory of God. Anyone who pretend to be as perfect and upright as you seem to portray yourself appears to be unreal. I have been in this world a fairly long time now, and have lived and worked in other countries and my assessment is that people world wide have similar weaknesses in characteristics and in behaviour, probably with a few exceptions here and there. Sorry , this response is aimed at Virgo, and not to you Roselyn T are you for real? Yep, I am for real alright, and "down to earth" living in the real world; why do you ask?
|
|
|
Post by kencoolidge on Oct 21, 2014 7:53:15 GMT -5
Virgo All due respect but the 2x2 system of homeless preachers, meeting in the home and the alpha doctrine are an institution which many believe in. Within that group are some who follow Jesus and put Him first in their lives. Jesus- the Way, Truth and Life is not an institution.! ken so show me please where i have defended an institution in my posts on this thread? Virgo I was pleasantly surprised as I read your previous post that I agreed with your responces.In particular these: because they are not made one, one in Him, one with the Father in Him. simply not on the same page with Him when we are one in Jesus there is simply no division in spirit the belief is the same for all Truth is of no private interpretation Christ is the right way period if one is a child of God they will know that without any doubt because God will have shown them that I think that perhaps I was on pharissee patrol which many past and present 2x2 find themselves doing.Hard to break bad habits of finding fault in others. I am totally with you in the belief that there is no division in the body of Christ. Glad to find the same thought in your posts even though where we are planted is not the same In sincerity ken
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Oct 21, 2014 16:19:24 GMT -5
It sounds to me like a pretty typical introductory course to mainstream Christian tradition. I would assume that there was nothing in the course about the such things as the politics involved in how Paul's theology got adopted by the church -- centuries after his death. Or how the doctrine of original sin found its way into Christian doctrine. I could go on for hours, but most people don't really want to know anything about it. This is all history, and history from a purely objective standpoint makes no judgment about theology -- but the facts of history can certainly discredit a lot of what Christians believe. Was this a college credit course, or who was sponsoring it? It also sounds like the kind of high school course that is intended to familiarize people with the Bible but not offend the general public. You are correct it was the syllabus for high schools in the UK and dependencies ( colonies). There's a book you might appreciate reading. A.D. 381 by Charles Freeman. You would undoubtedly be impressed with the primary historical sources that historians actually have access to these days.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Oct 21, 2014 17:32:49 GMT -5
so show me please where i have defended an institution in my posts on this thread? Virgo I was pleasantly surprised as I read your previous post that I agreed with your responces.In particular these: because they are not made one, You guys talk in platitudes that mean nothing specifically, and anything anyone wants them to mean. In order for people to know what you mean, they need to know who YOU consider they Are you referring to the people of a particular denomination, or all of Christianity, or of all mankind, or just the people of one congregation. I want to find myself in reference to your claim, otherwise I won't have a clue what you mean. I also need to know what YOUR concept of being made one is. Does it mean alike in appearance, alike in name, alike in doctrine, alike in theology, alike in philosophy, alike in political ideology -- and what aspect of a person's individuality are permissible within your concept of being made one. This phrase doesn't really contribute to the point you're trying to get across. It is just rhetoric intended to impress one of the loftiness of the previous platitude. Is there some real life example of this one with phrase, such as the man being one with his wife? This is a platitude that means nothing to anyone and anything to anyone. Until I know exactly what page YOU think HIM to be on, I have no idea what that specific page says. It has to be important, but the obvious is that different pages say different things. Which spirit by name, and what aspect of the spirit -- or if all aspects of the spirit, can you list them. Does anyone have a clue what anyone means these days when they tell someone they are in the spirit. It assumes we all subscribe to the same definition of the THE spirit, but it is most obvious that we don't. What is the belief. There are an endless list of even original Christian beliefs -- from an afterlife as the god of one's own universe to the doctrine of original sin. If I knew what the belief is that YOU, I could better understand what this whole passage means to you -- otherwise I frankly have no clue. Platitudes are private interpretation. You and hopefully the ones you are in one with know exactly what YOUR interpretation is. Can you translate it from abstract language to concrete language? If you can't, you realize you are keeping it private. This is both a platitude and a statement of faith. There is no tangible proof of such a statement, so it will never mean anything to anyone who is of a different faith -- or in Christian language, denomination. Which aspect of being a child of god are YOU referring to in this discussion -- a human created by god, a Christian, a born again Christian, a person of virgin birth. Can YOU give us your definition so we can identify the kind of people you are talking about. At this point we're too confused to even consider HOW god may have shown anyone anything. But if it is a truth, it would be important for us to evaluate it's revelation -- there are the David Koresh's out there. Do you and virgo have the same understanding of Phariseeism? Is it the traditional definition promoted by the Roman church? It is the use of platitudes that allows one to find fault without accepting the responsibility guilt. Do you and virgo worship alike?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2014 18:05:13 GMT -5
You are correct it was the syllabus for high schools in the UK and dependencies ( colonies). There's a book you might appreciate reading. A.D. 381 by Charles Freeman. You would undoubtedly be impressed with the primary historical sources that historians actually have access to these days. Thanks Bob, I'll look it up.
|
|
|
Post by kencoolidge on Oct 21, 2014 18:56:08 GMT -5
Bob Williston Sorry That I didn't copy your long and questionable post. Obviously we(you and I) do not talk with the same language understanding. If I am not mistaken my post was to Virgo and I feel he will understand even if you don't.. If you are asking if Virgo and I seek to honor and worship God in the same way I sense from his responces that we do as I do with many who post on here. God honors those who worship him in sincerity. He even honored Paul because of his sincerity. For quite awhile Paul was intellectually doing what he felt he needed to do to worship God. He got knocked off his intellectual horse and met Jesus. Spent time in Arabia unlearning his religious training and got toutored in the Way of God. Hope this might clarify some of these mysterious phrases and terminology that you have trouble with. ken
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Oct 21, 2014 20:45:46 GMT -5
Bob Williston Sorry That I didn't copy your long and questionable post. Obviously we(you and I) do not talk with the same language understanding. If I am not mistaken my post was to Virgo and I feel he will understand even if you don't.. Well yes, it's obvious we don't speak the same language. I wasn't the only one trying to figure out what you and virgo were posting. But just in case you want people like me to understand what you're saying, I thought it fair to tell you why I had no clue what you were talking about. You are no better with my platitudes than you are with mine. My question in plain language was: do you both fellowship in 2x2 fashion? You recognize that this is another statement of faith as well as a platitude. Where exactly have YOU witnessed worship anything without sincerity? What to YOU constitutes sincerity? I thought Paul was being led by the one who converted him in a vision. Was there something wrong with that vision, or was it not Jesus in the vision? He never met Jesus. This is another platitude. Unlearning WHAT religious training? Tutored by whom? Paul has a much better reputation for depending on personal revelation. Unfortunately, not really. What I get from it is that you subscribe to Paul's theology in a modern Christian adaptation of it. It doesn't explain anything about anything unique about people who worship in spirit and in truth, or whatever the wording is. Or is this interpretation of Paul's contribution to Christianity the core of your worship/spirituality?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2014 0:00:09 GMT -5
yes we know He wasn't a christian but we also weren't talking about Paul I know you weren't talking about Paul. Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Acts 3:6 Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk. Acts 3:18 But those things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled. Acts 3:20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: Acts 4:10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. forced to assimilate how? That's what I said. documented by whom? so therefore God doesn't teach? No, I said nothing at all like that. Jesus and Paul each introduced themselves, but not each other. he would never then know Himself as Jesus in that case? Do you think that the one who created the earth would know everything from eternity to eternity?/ meaning everything in all time? he meet Him alright it is the you don't believe or understand it Acts 9:5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. 17 And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. 18 And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized. 19 And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus. 20 And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God. 21 But all that heard him were amazed, and said; Is not this he that destroyed them which called on this name in Jerusalem, and came hither for that intent, that he might bring them bound unto the chief priests? 22 But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ. how did he find that out?how long a time was it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2014 0:17:36 GMT -5
Virgo I was pleasantly surprised as I read your previous post that I agreed with your responces.In particular these: because they are not made one, You guys talk in platitudes that mean nothing specifically, and anything anyone wants them to mean. In order for people to know what you mean, they need to know who YOU consider they Are you referring to the people of a particular denomination, or all of Christianity, or of all mankind, or just the people of one congregation. I want to find myself in reference to your claim, otherwise I won't have a clue what you mean. I also need to know what YOUR concept of being made one is. Does it mean alike in appearance, alike in name, alike in doctrine, alike in theology, alike in philosophy, alike in political ideology -- and what aspect of a person's individuality are permissible within your concept of being made one. This phrase doesn't really contribute to the point you're trying to get across. It is just rhetoric intended to impress one of the loftiness of the previous platitude. Is there some real life example of this one with phrase, such as the man being one with his wife? This is a platitude that means nothing to anyone and anything to anyone. Until I know exactly what page YOU think HIM to be on, I have no idea what that specific page says. It has to be important, but the obvious is that different pages say different things. Which spirit by name, and what aspect of the spirit -- or if all aspects of the spirit, can you list them. Does anyone have a clue what anyone means these days when they tell someone they are in the spirit. It assumes we all subscribe to the same definition of the THE spirit, but it is most obvious that we don't. What is the belief. There are an endless list of even original Christian beliefs -- from an afterlife as the god of one's own universe to the doctrine of original sin. If I knew what the belief is that YOU, I could better understand what this whole passage means to you -- otherwise I frankly have no clue. Platitudes are private interpretation. You and hopefully the ones you are in one with know exactly what YOUR interpretation is. Can you translate it from abstract language to concrete language? If you can't, you realize you are keeping it private. This is both a platitude and a statement of faith. There is no tangible proof of such a statement, so it will never mean anything to anyone who is of a different faith -- or in Christian language, denomination. Which aspect of being a child of god are YOU referring to in this discussion -- a human created by god, a Christian, a born again Christian, a person of virgin birth. Can YOU give us your definition so we can identify the kind of people you are talking about. At this point we're too confused to even consider HOW god may have shown anyone anything. But if it is a truth, it would be important for us to evaluate it's revelation -- there are the David Koresh's out there. Do you and virgo have the same understanding of Phariseeism? Is it the traditional definition promoted by the Roman church? It is the use of platitudes that allows one to find fault without accepting the responsibility guilt. Do you and virgo worship alike? sorry but i can't explain in the language you want, it is something that has to be experienced personally to understand
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Oct 22, 2014 0:48:58 GMT -5
You guys talk in platitudes that mean nothing specifically, and anything anyone wants them to mean. Sorry but i can't explain in the language you want, it is something that has to be experienced personally to understand Virgo, the reason you can't explain isn't the language. It is a matter of your just saying the same old thing over & over but not defining the meaning so that others know what you are talking about.
People just use them over & over especially in religious terms & are unable to really explain there meaning.
A couple are "God knows" and "Jesus is the answer" Platitude: definition
: a statement that expresses an idea that is . Full Definition of PLATITUDE 1: the quality or state of being dull or insipid 2: a banal, trite, or stale remark
Synonyms banality, bromide, chestnut, cliché (also cliche), groaner, homily, commonplace, shibboleth, trope, truism
|
|
|
Post by kencoolidge on Oct 22, 2014 5:16:24 GMT -5
Sorry but i can't explain in the language you want, it is something that has to be experienced personally to understand Virgo, the reason you can't explain isn't the language. It is a matter of your just saying the same old thing over & over but not defining the meaning so that others know what you are talking about.
People just use them over & over especially in religious terms & are unable to really explain there meaning.
A couple are "God knows" and "Jesus is the answer" Platitude: definition
: a statement that expresses an idea that is . Full Definition of PLATITUDE 1: the quality or state of being dull or insipid 2: a banal, trite, or stale remark
Synonyms banality, bromide, chestnut, cliché (also cliche), groaner, homily, commonplace, shibboleth, trope, truism
Dmg and bobby Sorry that you see every responce in platitudes and even feel neccesary to add the defintion:Here are some words that are not platitudes. Psa 1:1 ¶ Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful. Psa 1:2 But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night. These words describe folks who walk,stand and sit. Perhaps it might be about those who do none of these things before a righteous and Holy God? What say our book writers? ken
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Oct 22, 2014 17:33:33 GMT -5
I know you weren't talking about Paul. Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Acts 3:6 Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk. Acts 3:18 But those things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled. Acts 3:20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: Acts 4:10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. forced to assimilate how? That's what I said. documented by whom? so therefore God doesn't teach? No, I said nothing at all like that. Jesus and Paul each introduced themselves, but not each other. he would never then know Himself as Jesus in that case? Do you think that the one who created the earth would know everything from eternity to eternity?/ meaning everything in all time? he meet Him alright it is the you don't believe or understand it Acts 9:5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. 17 And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. 18 And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized. 19 And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus. 20 And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God. 21 But all that heard him were amazed, and said; Is not this he that destroyed them which called on this name in Jerusalem, and came hither for that intent, that he might bring them bound unto the chief priests? 22 But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ. how did he find that out?how long a time was it? Virgo -- the explanation would only confuse you more.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Oct 22, 2014 17:37:41 GMT -5
You guys talk in platitudes that mean nothing specifically, and anything anyone wants them to mean. In order for people to know what you mean, they need to know who YOU consider they Are you referring to the people of a particular denomination, or all of Christianity, or of all mankind, or just the people of one congregation. I want to find myself in reference to your claim, otherwise I won't have a clue what you mean. I also need to know what YOUR concept of being made one is. Does it mean alike in appearance, alike in name, alike in doctrine, alike in theology, alike in philosophy, alike in political ideology -- and what aspect of a person's individuality are permissible within your concept of being made one. This phrase doesn't really contribute to the point you're trying to get across. It is just rhetoric intended to impress one of the loftiness of the previous platitude. Is there some real life example of this one with phrase, such as the man being one with his wife? This is a platitude that means nothing to anyone and anything to anyone. Until I know exactly what page YOU think HIM to be on, I have no idea what that specific page says. It has to be important, but the obvious is that different pages say different things. Which spirit by name, and what aspect of the spirit -- or if all aspects of the spirit, can you list them. Does anyone have a clue what anyone means these days when they tell someone they are in the spirit. It assumes we all subscribe to the same definition of the THE spirit, but it is most obvious that we don't. What is the belief. There are an endless list of even original Christian beliefs -- from an afterlife as the god of one's own universe to the doctrine of original sin. If I knew what the belief is that YOU, I could better understand what this whole passage means to you -- otherwise I frankly have no clue. Platitudes are private interpretation. You and hopefully the ones you are in one with know exactly what YOUR interpretation is. Can you translate it from abstract language to concrete language? If you can't, you realize you are keeping it private. This is both a platitude and a statement of faith. There is no tangible proof of such a statement, so it will never mean anything to anyone who is of a different faith -- or in Christian language, denomination. Which aspect of being a child of god are YOU referring to in this discussion -- a human created by god, a Christian, a born again Christian, a person of virgin birth. Can YOU give us your definition so we can identify the kind of people you are talking about. At this point we're too confused to even consider HOW god may have shown anyone anything. But if it is a truth, it would be important for us to evaluate it's revelation -- there are the David Koresh's out there. Do you and virgo have the same understanding of Phariseeism? Is it the traditional definition promoted by the Roman church? It is the use of platitudes that allows one to find fault without accepting the responsibility guilt. Do you and virgo worship alike? sorry but i can't explain in the language you want, it is something that has to be experienced personally to understand Darn right it has to be experienced -- within the confines of a closed ideological community where the sound of the words counts for more than their substance. Out on the street where the shoe meets the sidewalk this kind of talk amounts to pure gobbledygook.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Oct 22, 2014 17:56:06 GMT -5
Virgo, the reason you can't explain isn't the language. It is a matter of your just saying the same old thing over & over but not defining the meaning so that others know what you are talking about.
People just use them over & over especially in religious terms & are unable to really explain there meaning.
A couple are "God knows" and "Jesus is the answer" Platitude: definition
: a statement that expresses an idea that is . Full Definition of PLATITUDE 1: the quality or state of being dull or insipid 2: a banal, trite, or stale remark
Synonyms banality, bromide, chestnut, cliché (also cliche), groaner, homily, commonplace, shibboleth, trope, truism
Dmg and bobby Sorry that you see every responce in platitudes and even feel neccesary to add the defintion:Here are some words that are not platitudes. Psa 1:1 ¶ Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful. Psa 1:2 But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night. These words describe folks who walk,stand and sit. Perhaps it might be about those who do none of these things before a righteous and Holy God? What say our book writers? ken Kenny -- pretend we are heathens and have not a clue about your history, experience, revelations, ideologies, politics, or anything -- then talk to us that way and we will maybe understand. The world doesn't owe it to you to understand the jargon of your subculture. Can you even tell us how become such a true worshiper, or are we predestined to be either an inny or an outy? The platitude for that would be those who are chosen and those who aren't, I suppose.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Oct 22, 2014 19:12:41 GMT -5
Here are some words that are not platitudes. Psa 1:1 Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful. It is not a platitude when read in the scriptures. However, it becomes a platitude when someone quotes it for the purpose of convincing someone of his INTERPRETATION of the passage. In your circle we presume everyone agrees on what each of the underlined words/phrases means. But when you're talking to US, we don't necessarily trust that you are speaking from the mind of the scriptural author. So for us to make any sense of what you're trying to explain, we have to know that exactly the following terms mean to YOU. ungodly -- who do YOU think the ungodly are. My understanding is that the author of this passage considered people of other races to be ungodly. Some people of modern Christian persuasion consider Billy Graham to be ungodly. Do you subscribe to either of those definitions, or do you have a different definition. For you to make your point, we need to know who YOU consider the ungodly to be. You've never told us that, and I distinctly sense you have avoided telling us clearly what you mean by that in order to demonstrate a non-offensive spirit. standeth in the way -- Do YOU think of this phrase as meaning preventing sinners from being saved, or worshiping with sinners, or simple living in a pluralistic democracy? We don't know what purpose YOU want this phrase to serve. sinners -- We don't know what your definition of sinner is, or even your concept of sin. Does sin represent error of belief, or does it mean social immorality, or some other concept of sin. What is the winners' way -- is it an ideology, a denomination? How do YOU suggest we recognize the way of sinners in order not to miss the blessing. sitteth in the seat -- does this mean occupying some manner of official position, sitting in the residencs of or the presence of the scornful, or is it a flowery expression for just being a scornful person? scornful -- what do YOU think constitutes scorn? Does it mean making nasty and condemning remarks to or about people, or does it simply involve thinking nasty and condemning things about them, or does it mean shunning people. I've been aware of religious people using the word scornful for anything that falls short of perfect adoration. We all have this passage memorized, but YOU are quoting it to make a point to ME. Here's what I need to know before I can really understand YOU. delight -- What is YOUR understanding of delight, it can be anything from a fondness for something to an absolute fetish for it. I delight in my wife -- and I make a socially acceptable display of that delight. Is that an acceptable demonstration of delight in the Lord in YOUR opinion? law of the LORD -- What is the law of the Lord? The ten commandments? Old Testament Law? The Golden Rule? The opinions of righteous people? Denominational creeds? Personal revelations? Laws are written to permit prosecution. God save us all from any of the above, but what do YOU consider the law of the lord? meditate -- How do YOU meditate? I meditate in times when I can sit quietly and ponder difficult and serious matters. Some people call "prayer" meditation. I personally think of meditation and prayer as the same thing. Is meditation a communicative process, or a monologue of sorts? Does meditating consist of considering one's faithfulness to the law, or the technicalities of the law, or the favorable comparison of the law against other kinds of law, or ways to "APPLY" the law? day and night -- Is it permissible to take time out to meditate on anything besides the law of the Lord? What about nightmares about Satan? Can one meditate on his 45 minute commute to work in the morning? Does a mentally demanding job hinder a person's ability to meditate? Walk, stand, and sit we all understand according to the dictionary meaning. Platitudes are not platitudes because of the words used to quote them -- they're platitudes because the words are not being used for their dictionary meanings. You're not quoting them with the dictionary meaning in mind. If you were using according to their definition, standing and sitting and walking would constitute good physical exercise. OR does moving ones legs have something to do with "walking in the way"?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2014 20:50:37 GMT -5
Here are some words that are not platitudes. Psa 1:1 Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful. It is not a platitude when read in the scriptures. However, it becomes a platitude when someone quotes it for the purpose of convincing someone of his INTERPRETATION of the passage. In your circle we presume everyone agrees on what each of the underlined words/phrases means. But when you're talking to US, we don't necessarily trust that you are speaking from the mind of the scriptural author. So for us to make any sense of what you're trying to explain, we have to know that exactly the following terms mean to YOU. ungodly -- who do YOU think the ungodly are. My understanding is that the author of this passage considered people of other races to be ungodly. Some people of modern Christian persuasion consider Billy Graham to be ungodly. Do you subscribe to either of those definitions, or do you have a different definition. For you to make your point, we need to know who YOU consider the ungodly to be. You've never told us that, and I distinctly sense you have avoided telling us clearly what you mean by that in order to demonstrate a non-offensive spirit. standeth in the way -- Do YOU think of this phrase as meaning preventing sinners from being saved, or worshiping with sinners, or simple living in a pluralistic democracy? We don't know what purpose YOU want this phrase to serve. sinners -- We don't know what your definition of sinner is, or even your concept of sin. Does sin represent error of belief, or does it mean social immorality, or some other concept of sin. What is the winners' way -- is it an ideology, a denomination? How do YOU suggest we recognize the way of sinners in order not to miss the blessing. sitteth in the seat -- does this mean occupying some manner of official position, sitting in the residencs of or the presence of the scornful, or is it a flowery expression for just being a scornful person? scornful -- what do YOU think constitutes scorn? Does it mean making nasty and condemning remarks to or about people, or does it simply involve thinking nasty and condemning things about them, or does it mean shunning people. I've been aware of religious people using the word scornful for anything that falls short of perfect adoration. We all have this passage memorized, but YOU are quoting it to make a point to ME. Here's what I need to know before I can really understand YOU. delight -- What is YOUR understanding of delight, it can be anything from a fondness for something to an absolute fetish for it. I delight in my wife -- and I make a socially acceptable display of that delight. Is that an acceptable demonstration of delight in the Lord in YOUR opinion? law of the LORD -- What is the law of the Lord? The ten commandments? Old Testament Law? The Golden Rule? The opinions of righteous people? Denominational creeds? Personal revelations? Laws are written to permit prosecution. God save us all from any of the above, but what do YOU consider the law of the lord? meditate -- How do YOU meditate? I meditate in times when I can sit quietly and ponder difficult and serious matters. Some people call "prayer" meditation. I personally think of meditation and prayer as the same thing. Is meditation a communicative process, or a monologue of sorts? Does meditating consist of considering one's faithfulness to the law, or the technicalities of the law, or the favorable comparison of the law against other kinds of law, or ways to "APPLY" the law? day and night -- Is it permissible to take time out to meditate on anything besides the law of the Lord? What about nightmares about Satan? Can one meditate on his 45 minute commute to work in the morning? Does a mentally demanding job hinder a person's ability to meditate? Walk, stand, and sit we all understand according to the dictionary meaning. Platitudes are not platitudes because of the words used to quote them -- they're platitudes because the words are not being used for their dictionary meanings. You're not quoting them with the dictionary meaning in mind. If you were using according to their definition, standing and sitting and walking would constitute good physical exercise. OR does moving ones legs have something to do with "walking in the way"? geez bob your making communication way more complicated than it needs to be, if you really don't want to talk to him just stop...
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Oct 22, 2014 21:11:25 GMT -5
It is not a platitude when read in the scriptures. However, it becomes a platitude when someone quotes it for the purpose of convincing someone of his INTERPRETATION of the passage. In your circle we presume everyone agrees on what each of the underlined words/phrases means. But when you're talking to US, we don't necessarily trust that you are speaking from the mind of the scriptural author. So for us to make any sense of what you're trying to explain, we have to know that exactly the following terms mean to YOU. ungodly -- who do YOU think the ungodly are. My understanding is that the author of this passage considered people of other races to be ungodly. Some people of modern Christian persuasion consider Billy Graham to be ungodly. Do you subscribe to either of those definitions, or do you have a different definition. For you to make your point, we need to know who YOU consider the ungodly to be. You've never told us that, and I distinctly sense you have avoided telling us clearly what you mean by that in order to demonstrate a non-offensive spirit. standeth in the way -- Do YOU think of this phrase as meaning preventing sinners from being saved, or worshiping with sinners, or simple living in a pluralistic democracy? We don't know what purpose YOU want this phrase to serve. sinners -- We don't know what your definition of sinner is, or even your concept of sin. Does sin represent error of belief, or does it mean social immorality, or some other concept of sin. What is the winners' way -- is it an ideology, a denomination? How do YOU suggest we recognize the way of sinners in order not to miss the blessing. sitteth in the seat -- does this mean occupying some manner of official position, sitting in the residencs of or the presence of the scornful, or is it a flowery expression for just being a scornful person? scornful -- what do YOU think constitutes scorn? Does it mean making nasty and condemning remarks to or about people, or does it simply involve thinking nasty and condemning things about them, or does it mean shunning people. I've been aware of religious people using the word scornful for anything that falls short of perfect adoration. We all have this passage memorized, but YOU are quoting it to make a point to ME. Here's what I need to know before I can really understand YOU. delight -- What is YOUR understanding of delight, it can be anything from a fondness for something to an absolute fetish for it. I delight in my wife -- and I make a socially acceptable display of that delight. Is that an acceptable demonstration of delight in the Lord in YOUR opinion? law of the LORD -- What is the law of the Lord? The ten commandments? Old Testament Law? The Golden Rule? The opinions of righteous people? Denominational creeds? Personal revelations? Laws are written to permit prosecution. God save us all from any of the above, but what do YOU consider the law of the lord? meditate -- How do YOU meditate? I meditate in times when I can sit quietly and ponder difficult and serious matters. Some people call "prayer" meditation. I personally think of meditation and prayer as the same thing. Is meditation a communicative process, or a monologue of sorts? Does meditating consist of considering one's faithfulness to the law, or the technicalities of the law, or the favorable comparison of the law against other kinds of law, or ways to "APPLY" the law? day and night -- Is it permissible to take time out to meditate on anything besides the law of the Lord? What about nightmares about Satan? Can one meditate on his 45 minute commute to work in the morning? Does a mentally demanding job hinder a person's ability to meditate? Walk, stand, and sit we all understand according to the dictionary meaning. Platitudes are not platitudes because of the words used to quote them -- they're platitudes because the words are not being used for their dictionary meanings. You're not quoting them with the dictionary meaning in mind. If you were using according to their definition, standing and sitting and walking would constitute good physical exercise. OR does moving ones legs have something to do with "walking in the way"? geez bob your making communication way more complicated than it needs to be, if you really don't want to talk to him just stop... Incidentally, the only reason I find a lot of things you write a bit less difficult to decipher is because you're still in the mold I was raised in. I understand what you mean when you use a lot of these prosaic expressions because I had 50 years of exposure to 2x2 innuendo. I have outgrown it, but I haven't converted to another version of the innuendo to confuse my understanding of the "platitudes". Who said I didn't like talking to him? What's wrong with me telling someone why I don't understand him? He says something in a the group forum -- does anyone object to my understanding of what's going on?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Oct 22, 2014 21:44:58 GMT -5
Here are some words that are not platitudes. Psa 1:1 Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful. It is not a platitude when read in the scriptures. However, it becomes a platitude when someone quotes it for the purpose of convincing someone of his INTERPRETATION of the passage. In your circle we presume everyone agrees on what each of the underlined words/phrases means. But when you're talking to US, we don't necessarily trust that you are speaking from the mind of the scriptural author. So for us to make any sense of what you're trying to explain, we have to know that exactly the following terms mean to YOU. ungodly -- who do YOU think the ungodly are. My understanding is that the author of this passage considered people of other races to be ungodly. Some people of modern Christian persuasion consider Billy Graham to be ungodly. Do you subscribe to either of those definitions, or do you have a different definition. For you to make your point, we need to know who YOU consider the ungodly to be. You've never told us that, and I distinctly sense you have avoided telling us clearly what you mean by that in order to demonstrate a non-offensive spirit. standeth in the way -- Do YOU think of this phrase as meaning preventing sinners from being saved, or worshiping with sinners, or simple living in a pluralistic democracy? We don't know what purpose YOU want this phrase to serve. sinners -- We don't know what your definition of sinner is, or even your concept of sin. Does sin represent error of belief, or does it mean social immorality, or some other concept of sin. What is the winners' way -- is it an ideology, a denomination? How do YOU suggest we recognize the way of sinners in order not to miss the blessing. sitteth in the seat -- does this mean occupying some manner of official position, sitting in the residencs of or the presence of the scornful, or is it a flowery expression for just being a scornful person? scornful -- what do YOU think constitutes scorn? Does it mean making nasty and condemning remarks to or about people, or does it simply involve thinking nasty and condemning things about them, or does it mean shunning people. I've been aware of religious people using the word scornful for anything that falls short of perfect adoration. We all have this passage memorized, but YOU are quoting it to make a point to ME. Here's what I need to know before I can really understand YOU. delight -- What is YOUR understanding of delight, it can be anything from a fondness for something to an absolute fetish for it. I delight in my wife -- and I make a socially acceptable display of that delight. Is that an acceptable demonstration of delight in the Lord in YOUR opinion? law of the LORD -- What is the law of the Lord? The ten commandments? Old Testament Law? ermit prosecution. God save us all from any of the above, but what do YOU consider the law of the lord? meditate -- How do YOU meditate? I meditate in times when I can sit quietly and ponder difficult and serious matters. Some people call "prayer" meditation. I personally think of meditation and prayer as the same thing. Is meditation a communicative process, or a monologue of sorts? Does meditating consist of considering one's faithfulness to the law, or the technicalities of the law, or the favorable comparison of the law against other kinds of law, or ways to "APPLY" the law? day and night -- Is it permissible to take time out to meditate on anything besides the law of the Lord? What about nightmares about Satan? Can one meditate on his 45 minute commute to work in the morning? Does a mentally demanding job hinder a person's ability to meditate? Walk, stand, and sit we all understand according to the dictionary meaning. Platitudes are not platitudes because of the words used to quote them -- they're platitudes because the words are not being used for their dictionary meanings. You're not quoting them with the dictionary meaning in mind. If you were using according to their definition, standing and sitting and walking would constitute good physical exercise. OR does moving ones legs have something to do with "walking in the way"? Thanks, Bob.You explained very well.
It does get tiresome for someone to keep repeating the same old platitudes, often one after another, & seem to think they are saying something original. They also seem to think that we should understand what they mean.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Oct 22, 2014 22:13:21 GMT -5
It is not a platitude when read in the scriptures. However, it becomes a platitude when someone quotes it for the purpose of convincing someone of his INTERPRETATION of the passage. In your circle we presume everyone agrees on what each of the underlined words/phrases means. But when you're talking to US, we don't necessarily trust that you are speaking from the mind of the scriptural author. So for us to make any sense of what you're trying to explain, we have to know that exactly the following terms mean to YOU. ungodly -- who do YOU think the ungodly are. My understanding is that the author of this passage considered people of other races to be ungodly. Some people of modern Christian persuasion consider Billy Graham to be ungodly. Do you subscribe to either of those definitions, or do you have a different definition. For you to make your point, we need to know who YOU consider the ungodly to be. You've never told us that, and I distinctly sense you have avoided telling us clearly what you mean by that in order to demonstrate a non-offensive spirit. standeth in the way -- Do YOU think of this phrase as meaning preventing sinners from being saved, or worshiping with sinners, or simple living in a pluralistic democracy? We don't know what purpose YOU want this phrase to serve. sinners -- We don't know what your definition of sinner is, or even your concept of sin. Does sin represent error of belief, or does it mean social immorality, or some other concept of sin. What is the winners' way -- is it an ideology, a denomination? How do YOU suggest we recognize the way of sinners in order not to miss the blessing. sitteth in the seat -- does this mean occupying some manner of official position, sitting in the residencs of or the presence of the scornful, or is it a flowery expression for just being a scornful person? scornful -- what do YOU think constitutes scorn? Does it mean making nasty and condemning remarks to or about people, or does it simply involve thinking nasty and condemning things about them, or does it mean shunning people. I've been aware of religious people using the word scornful for anything that falls short of perfect adoration. We all have this passage memorized, but YOU are quoting it to make a point to ME. Here's what I need to know before I can really understand YOU. delight -- What is YOUR understanding of delight, it can be anything from a fondness for something to an absolute fetish for it. I delight in my wife -- and I make a socially acceptable display of that delight. Is that an acceptable demonstration of delight in the Lord in YOUR opinion? law of the LORD -- What is the law of the Lord? The ten commandments? Old Testament Law? ermit prosecution. God save us all from any of the above, but what do YOU consider the law of the lord? meditate -- How do YOU meditate? I meditate in times when I can sit quietly and ponder difficult and serious matters. Some people call "prayer" meditation. I personally think of meditation and prayer as the same thing. Is meditation a communicative process, or a monologue of sorts? Does meditating consist of considering one's faithfulness to the law, or the technicalities of the law, or the favorable comparison of the law against other kinds of law, or ways to "APPLY" the law? day and night -- Is it permissible to take time out to meditate on anything besides the law of the Lord? What about nightmares about Satan? Can one meditate on his 45 minute commute to work in the morning? Does a mentally demanding job hinder a person's ability to meditate? Walk, stand, and sit we all understand according to the dictionary meaning. Platitudes are not platitudes because of the words used to quote them -- they're platitudes because the words are not being used for their dictionary meanings. You're not quoting them with the dictionary meaning in mind. If you were using according to their definition, standing and sitting and walking would constitute good physical exercise. OR does moving ones legs have something to do with "walking in the way"? Thanks, Bob.You explained very well.
It does get tiresome for someone to keep repeating the same old platitudes, often one after another, & seem to think they are saying something original. They also seem to think that we should understand what they mean.
It reminds me of my brother in law when he would come to visit us in Quebec. When a clerk in the store didn't understand him, he would say it louder. He had always to be reminded that the person was not deaf -- he isn't speaking the same language. It's an American fallacy that the whole world speaks English, somewhat like the Christian's idea that the whole world understands their non-standard English jargon. I once had a professor publish a paper I wrote on the 2x2 non-standard language usage.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Oct 22, 2014 22:13:42 GMT -5
Thanks, Bob.You explained very well.
It does get tiresome for someone to keep repeating the same old platitudes, often one after another, & seem to think they are saying something original. They also seem to think that we should understand what they mean.
It reminds me of my brother in law when he would come to visit us in Quebec. When a clerk in the store didn't understand him, he would say it louder. He had always to be reminded that the person was not deaf -- he isn't speaking the same language. It's an American fallacy that the whole world speaks English, somewhat like the Christian's idea that the whole world understands their non-standard English jargon. I once had a professor publish a paper I wrote on the 2x2 non-standard language usage.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2014 0:03:10 GMT -5
Virgo -- the explanation would only confuse you more. give it a try big boy
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Oct 23, 2014 1:19:37 GMT -5
Virgo -- the explanation would only confuse you more. give it a try big boy Do I have to? Go through my past posts. I have explained this a few times.
|
|
|
Post by kencoolidge on Oct 23, 2014 6:50:40 GMT -5
Bob Our exchanges don't seem to be fruitful. I am sorry if I have offended you on TMB. It seems I don't do a good job of representing or communicating what I am living. You have said you don't understand what I have written and likewise I don't seem to understand your motives. I feel that there is no profit in further exchanges with you so I am disengaging. ken
|
|