Who is behind the plain Biblical deceptions?

Originally posted by LCKob
"This is a fine statement for those who do not understand what believers actually believe...which is that by the hand of God...putting it into the hearts and minds of the writer what to write for His purpose...indeed he being the author, not the mortal who wrote it, then indeed the earlier writings WERE written with future writings in mind...in God
s mind."

LCKob:

"putting it into the hearts and minds of the writer WHAT TO WRITE for His purpose ... indeed he being the author ..."

Okay, for the sake of clarity and confirmation ... it appears that you promote the stance that the collected works or "biblical volumes" are for all intents and purposes "authored by god" with the hand of man? Furthermore, that these
separate writings were all written as to be cohesive and consistant "with future writings in mind"?

So to recap and break it down further for ease of point analysis ...

1. The Bible is literal word of god as physically written by mortal man. (literal as referenced to "what to write" decriptor phrase)

2. The collected works of the bible are meant to be cohesive and consistent (as referenced to "with future writings in mind")?

Thus, the following compound question ...

Is the "bible" literal and are the volumes consistent and cohesive?

Note, that the way in which I put forth this clarification is an attempt to get a straitforward unambiguous answer and commitment to a view or statment ...

LCKob

You have been around since before me as a registered user and you quote your own post and then write a one liner...and its question to me?

How about your clarification regarding this post?

Or did you think I sit at the computer 24/7 and available to answer your original post immediately? And since I wasn't able to respond to you as quickly as you'd like, you felt this post was necesassary?

well, I'm making my way down the list replying on a first come first served basis, in the future, a little patience please? Hmmm...I've since replied to you, but now I am doubting your interest in really reading it or understanding me.

What a shame I wasted all that time in replying to you then

Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 13/1/2006 by Mirthful Me]

Think2much:

You have been around since before me as a registered user and you quote your own post and then write a one liner...and its question to me?

How about your clarification regarding this post?

Or did you think I sit at the computer 24/7 and available to answer your original post immediately? And since I wasn't able to respond to you as quickly as you'd like, you felt this post was necesassary?

well, I'm making my way down the list replying on a first come first served basis, in the future, a little patience please? Hmmm...I've since replied to you, but now I am doubting your interest in really reading it or understanding me.

What a shame I wasted all that time in replying to you then

LCKob:

I am sorry you feel the way you do, and I fail to see the point of your obvious irritation ... given what I thought of as your general response times, I thought it a reasonable possibility that given the diminutive size of my post (when compared to some others ... that it was merely overlooked ... I could see your point if there was a history of such prompting, but there is not ... nor was there malicious intent ... please point out instances in which I have been discourteous or percieved to be discourteous and I will as per most adults apologize and accomodate if I am able ... the tone and nature of your present response does you no credit in this department.

As for splitting hairs and being nit-picky, I think it obvious from my posts, style and emphasis on SM ... point to my somewhat obvious analytical nature ... thus my responses (if you care to look at a spectrum of my posts) shows consistency in the use of critical assessment tools when provided with debate controversy or informational assessment. I was not, nor do I make it a practice to harass people ... but I do debate them in forums such as this ... after all it can be argued that this is a debate forum with topics like "Who is behind the plain Biblical deceptions?"





[edit on 6-1-2006 by LCKob]

Originally posted by LCKob
I am sorry you feel the way you do, and I fail to see the point of your obvious irritation ... given what I thought of as your general response times, I thought it a reasonable possibility that given the diminutive size of my post (when compared to some others ... that it was merely overlooked ...

Well, if you must press and know, it is your tone I find irritating, and what seems to me your obvious seek for a debate even of minute things on the side, evidenced further by this very post I reply to, and your continual tone, that I think I do find obviously irritating.

To be honest, it's more of an anoyance I feel for you than irratating. If you weren't writing to me directly, I'd just ignore you altogether. As you may have noticed if you've read this entire thread, I haven't always had to stick my nose in and have my say to everyone on every subject here, but have tried to keep my own posts more or less on track, as in, on the subject(s) at hand as I see it.

I don't mind analyzing things or debating things, but when people are so...I don't know, not to put you or anyone down...but when they have to make a reach to find little things to debate...it's usually because they need a "quick fix" to make themslves somehow feel superior and it doesn't interest me to try to debate nothing just to try feel superior or help another in their endeavor for that quick fix.

In analyzing the situation, and taking note even of what you thought was my general response times (what are my general response times on average anyway, I'd be interested in knowing) for someone such as yourself with such an astute attention to detail and anylitical nature, may I suggest in the future, you might want to take into consideration the posts preceeding yours, which I had not yet replied to, in your calculations of what you thought my general response time was, and thus should be to you.

In doing this, consider the possibility I am either not online replying, or that I might be otherwise engaged in replying to someone else. Now, since , as you point out your small size in comparison with other men's... posts here... you may also want to reasonably consider that in my giving attention to those larger than yours, it may warrant a reasonable amount of extra effort on my part, and thus more time as well, to do so in a satisfying way for all involved.

Originally posted by LCKob
I could see your point if there was a history of such prompting, but there is not ... nor was there malicious intent ...

Well, then I'd be inclined to appologize as if I had jumped to a conclusion then as for your intent, however by your consistant tone, I don't really think an appology is in order-other than to say I'm sorry you feel the way you do.

Originally posted by LCKob
please point out instances in which I have been discourteous or percieved to be discourteous and I will as per most adults apologize and accomodate if I am able ...

Well it's a perceptual thing isn't it? I do find your tone and premature problems...of prompting for reply.... and your follow-up post as somewhat petty argumentative behavior, and thus discourteous to me, and distracting from the topics at hand on the thread. And I am not in the least bit interested in trying to point this out to you further.

Originally posted by LCKob
the tone and nature of your present response does you no credit in this department.

LMAO sorry but that was so ironically hypocritical that it really did make me laugh! I think it is what lightened me up enough to both to respond to you at all.

As far as "this department" I will say my history of posting is to my credit for not engaging in this pettiness usually despite my present replies to you adressing me directly in this.

I will coneed this much, maybe you are getting the brunt of my irritation with many, but since I usually just keep it to myself and move on, unless specifically called out to deal with such, you get it all for calling me out with your tone and prompting. Ah well.

Originally posted by LCKob
As for splitting hairs and being nit-picky, I think it obvious from my posts, style and emphasis on SM ... point to my somewhat obvious analytical nature ... thus my responses

Well, not that there is anything wrong for splitting hairs or being nit-picky, as I even said I do/am at times as well, but otherwise please see above as to how I think you can improve using your vast analytical skills.

And to further clarify, use them for an actual purpose at hand. Though I asked to what end you inquired, I still don't know why you asked for my official stand, or the specific questions I answered, and you've yet to elaborate why, or how you are using understanding those questions and my stand in analyzing...anything.

What is it you wanted to conclude, and what have you concluded, that couldn't be reasonably concluded before I answered them?

See, Spamandham had some tone and perceptual issues, but I enjoyed our communication as I dind't feel it was entreily negative, nor did I find it annoying or irritating really and I dind't mind clarifying things.

Originally posted by LCKob
(if you care to look at a spectrum of my posts) shows consistency in the use of critical assessment tools when provided with debate controversy or informational assessment.

I don't care to, but thank you. I just honestly I have no interest or inclination in looking into your spectrum of posts.

Here on this thread, you have made no valid points to me on either side of the perceived by you debate, controversy, or information you are trying to assess here, and all I see you doing is playing a game of "can you back that up?" "Can you tell me why?" "Can you tell me where you found that?" "Can you show me proof?" which is what people who are bored or have little to actually say themselves usually say and do. They just go around challenge everyone else for the burden of proof using the excuse/disguise of being analytical.

Point is, unless I've missed something, you've said nothing about the subject at hand of this board, so you become a merely a different angle of the conspiracy- a distraction.

Originally posted by LCKob
I was not, nor do I make it a practice to harass people ... but I do debate them in forums such as this ... after all it can be argued that this is a debate forum with topics like "Who is behind the plain Biblical deceptions?"

OK, well then noted, you are not trying to harrass me or other people, your posts just seem contray to their by nature here on this thread, but it could just be my perception and maybe I've overlooked where you have, or have tried to make a positive contribution to this thread. As I said, perhaps it's just my sole perception of you, and so don't take my replies so personally, as I said, if you weren't talking to me, I'd probably just ignore you anyway.







[edit on 6-1-2006 by think2much]

for anyone waiting baited for a reply...I am now off to go pick up my son from school. I will be away from the computer...possibly for the rest of the day...could be for the rest of the weekend, I don't know yet... but as I don't know what my general reply time is, please know I will reply when I can.

Orangetom! OUTSTANDING POST btw! I really do want to reply to you and others and will soonbut wanted to say hello, as I recognize you from other threqads we've posted on and I always seem to enjoy your educating and informative and well toned posts. Thanks you for another quality post here.

Think2much:

Here on this thread, you have made no valid points to me on either side of the perceived by you debate, controversy, or information you are trying to assess here, and all I see you doing is playing a game of "can you back that up?" "Can you tell me why?" "Can you tell me where you found that?" "Can you show me proof?" which is what people who are bored or have little to actually say themselves usually say and do. They just go around challenge everyone else for the burden of proof using the excuse/disguise of being analytical.

LCKob:

Haha ... not to worry think2much ... you don't have to reply ... for I see your fundemental perception of things where my posts are concerned ... so let us just say that our personal styles seem to cause intrinsic friction and leave it at that.

... and the following is merely informational purposes in defense of my intent .

As with any analytical process of evaluation one of the first considerations issues of potential problems is in the very vagueries of communication itself. As such, it is a very common practice to establish a basic groundwork for defintions, perceptions, proprietary terminology and any number of communicative variables that can (and often have) interfered with the ACCURATE or intended message.

Thus my request for clarity was just that, a means to set the groundwork of actual informational exchange ... instead of "hey I thought you meant this ... 100 pages later) Now that, I would consider a waste of time.

... and personally, I don't like to "call someone's hand" after the fact, IF there is a chance at establishing EFFECTIVE AND ACCURATE methods of communication before hand. ...

Furthermore, I find it somewhat baffling that you totally disregard (by admitted) avoidance any chance at confirmation of my posting trends (and thus - a strong indicator that I was not targeting you on a personal level ... merely evaluating your message by method).

... as for the rest of your post, let us just agree to disagree, for like I said, I am not in the business of "trolling" or "harassing"

One final note: For all posters who feel as Think2much does in regards to any percieved slights from me... and have not said anything out of propriety, feel free to "u2u" me (I do not wish to "derail" this thread unduly) and tell me so ... I don't take offense at such communication ... nor do I balk at any attempt to diffuse potential misunderstandings ... especially with the limited form of text exchange (no offense to the admin or site)

LCKob





[edit on 6-1-2006 by LCKob]

Hey, even ran a few errands, and made it back online...(actually, I discovered I hadn't logged out and I can't just leave this forumn up around here!)

so LCKob...

for I see your fundemental perception of things where my posts are concerned ... so let us just say that our personal styles seem to cause intrinsic friction and leave it at that.

Hey now, there you go and blow my whole perception of you! Y ou drop that challenging tone and actually seem like an OK person vafterall...now what am I to think?

(Or where am I to go and vent all the irritation that builds up within me )

Originally posted by banjo_guru
I have tried to read and follow the posts in this thread, and have found them a bit 'lengthy', to the point that I forget the initial premise by the time I get to the end of the post!

um, so what exactly what are you trying to say?

OK, Admittedly, I don't have to have a say on everything, but when I do...I often can't shut-up. Sorry, as I'm sure you are mostly talking to me there! I know I should sometimes break up my thoughts into more than one post I am told, and it's advice I will follow.

Originally posted by banjo_guru
HOWEVER, I agree with a lot of the initial post on this subject.

Oh, look-I like you already!

Originally posted by banjo_guru
We have all been taught by the 'church system' to accept all the dogmas and doctrines we are taught without questioning where they came from.
I am a 40+ year Christian, and in the last 5 years I have delved deeply into the Bible and the origins of the doctrines I was taught. As the result, I have discovered that many of them are THEORY, TRADITION, and the TEACHINGS OF MEN. This is what Christ came against when he was railing on the Pharisees a lot of the time!

Exactly!

Originally posted by banjo_guru
Now I think is the time the prophet was referring to in the scripture below.
The forefathers did not set out to deceive us on purpose (for the most part, but there are exceptions), they just passed on what was taught to them.

I am of course inclined to agree...

Originally posted by banjo_guru
Let's face it, most church members sit on the pew and study no farther than the doors of the churchhouse, expecting the speaker to spoon feed them what they learn.

Sad, but entirely too true.

Thanks for your thoughts banjo!



[edit on 7-1-2006 by think2much]

Originally posted by orangetom1999
Ghaele makes a very well written post on page 3 of this thread. (snip)... The problem I have with the rest of the post is that there are two priestcrafts at work here....with different forms and different dogmas.

Yes, I enjoyed Ghaeles educational post, and I want to thank you for yours as well! And for clarifying between the two priestcrafts and for giving me another light in which to understand what I am learning Orangetom.

Originally posted by orangetom1999
I have seen this over and over in variations of Gnostic religions. "I shall Hail ..I shall conceal and never reveal. Not my mark, step , sign, or inscription." This is not Christianity

I'd like it if your expound upon this Orangetom...here or in u2u...these gnostic beliefs...even in Christianity?...hidden knowledge, actions/practices, beliefs? Do you quote something specific there, or is it more for example?

Originally posted by orangetom1999
It is explained. Clear. No where are you admonished not to tell it. I find such a assertion astonishing if it ever comes from a Christian about Biblical verses. I tell them quickly that this is not Christian.

You tell them what is not Christian? What kind of example can you give if you can recall such a situation. As I've never had never known Christians or those professing such, to claim secrecey, especially about Bible verses, even when I find by their behaiviour things are sometimes concealed. If that makes sense.

I however find much personal revelation in reading the Bible. This is not necessarily secrets in the Bible, execpt in the fact it is by the Spirit of God some things become plainer or are revealed to me, in the uncovering truth that has been seeminlgy been concealed by men, or by the understanding of things in a different way than I have been taught. You know?

Originally posted by orangetom1999
What is so astonishing to me is that so many Christian Believers dont know this either. The amount of ignorance among my Christian Bretheren is sometimes astonishing to me. They too are following exactly the disobedient pattern of which the Hebrews of olde were following.

this would truly be the downfall of "blind faith"

Originally posted by orangetom1999
It is also of intrest and note to me that many of the non believers here in these posts are more knowlegable in the history of this world and its peoples than are the believers. This is not a good thing that Christians should be ignorant. Yet astonishingly enough many are.

I would go as far as so "most" are. I find it rare in a huge congregation of believers to find anyone that has a clue to the origins of their beliefs more than the bare facts of their faith that they believe in Christ ...and the major stories of the old testament, creation, the flood, Moses etc...all on faith without caring to know history or fact of matters.

In some way...maybe it's better they have blind ignorant faith than no faith at all...but again...pathetic too and to their shame

Originally posted by orangetom1999
There have been constant attempts made to do what I call hijacking the Bible to bring it into the realm of the secret..the concealed ..and therefore under Gnostic reasoning. The reasoning of men..logic. This is a fingerprint ..a telltale sign of what is behind it.
The Bible is a work of Faith from begining to end.. It is not concealed.

it is not concealed...

I'm not sure I understand everything you say, or how you mean it...because not everything is understood in the Bible by everyone, even when it's plain to some. Even the appostles said this, and Jesus himself explained why He spoke in parables...

...but what do YOU mean when you say "some try to hijack it and bring it into the realm of the secret?"

Can you, will you, expound upon that for li'l ol' me?

Originally posted by orangetom1999
I will close by this addition. (snip)Galatians Chapter 4.
Verse 29 declares

"but then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now."

This is very significant and telling as this is still going on now..as evidenced by many of the posts here and other places. Even in the chat rooms I sometimes frequent.

This is no secret.

Indeed...that is no secret to me either.

Orangetom, I find you to be consistantly respectful in your tone to all people and knowledgeable and educating. Thank you again, for your well written post.

Think

LCKob:

1. The Bible is literal word of god as physically written by mortal man. (literal as referenced to "what to write" decriptor phrase)

2. The collected works of the bible are meant to be cohesive and consistent (as referenced to "with future writings in mind")?

Thus, the following compound question ...

Is the "bible" literal and are the volumes consistent and cohesive?

Note, that the way in which I put forth this clarification is an attempt to get a straitforward unambiguous answer and commitment to a view or statment ...



Think2much:

I do think God is the author and that He inspired the various works/writings for His purpose...and though I believe He put it in to the hearts of men, inspired them what to write and inspired them to go and write it...it's NOT like I think He "wrote" it as in a ghost writer and it was dictated ver batim or something.

LCKob:

Okay, this is what I wanted to confirm ... If I understand you correctly, the biblical texts are not THE LITERAL WORD of a god ... that by some mechanism of misunderstanding/interpretation or communication error? The texts are for all intents and purposes INTERPRETATIONS? (correct if I am wrong, but is why I wanted clarrification in the first place)

Think2much:

For example of my faith and feeling on the subject, I will go as far as saying if the first 5 books were not written by Moses, or say the first Chapter Genesis was actually stolen from the Persians...that if it is a true -even an albeit allegorical-story of creation for the benefit of mankind, then even this act could be used for good, and could have been inspired by God, or used from then on , as inspired by Him.

For example, taking this new (to me) idea that Genbesis was stolen from the Persians...who is to say that nullifies the story of creation-allegorical or not-as inspired or that it didn't benefit the Jews to come to this knowledge somehow...or it wasn't God's plan even...to use it on their own.?

LCKob:

Well, in the context of "non literal", I would say that it would allow for the above technically, but, from the outside perspective I would be remiss if I did not mention that it seems suspect that such a diety would stoop to "plagerize" older or competing ideas while promoting its own supremacy ... that reminds me of the situation of public school teachers sending their own children to private schools ...

Think2much:

Or maybe no, God didn't mean for them to "steal it" secretively, or deceitfully accredit it to Moses, but as long as it was benefiting the people and doing no harm...or even doing good...serving a higher purpose...then perhaps it was allowed by God, and written in a way inspired of Him and thus inteneded by God...even the jews be brought into capitivity to hear the inspiring allegorical tale of creation which He had already inspired the Persians with. Who knows?

LCKob:

Again ... possible ... (as with ever interpretation) ... but why? Now granted, it is not mandated that this god has to be logical ... but why not formulate or better yet manifest the true meaning to the followers? ... to be read and passed down through the ages as confirmed and reinforced as the word of god ... as opposed to a creeping "erosion" or increased questioning of scripture as time passes?

thus ... your initial question: "Who is behind the plain biblical deceptions"

can therefore be argued to included everyone who as ever written "inspired" passages for religious purposes ... for if these tracts are not literal they are interpretations as in ... "a particular adaptation or version of a work, method, or style"

In addition, I think the assertion of a non literal would also help to explain discrepancies in "cohesiveness" ...

So to sum up, I would say that any such biblical or religious texts that contain the writings of those "inspired" as opposed to those "dictated to" would by practice and definition contain a great deal of what could be construed as the "deceptions" that you speak of ... now add to this 2000 years of additional "inspiration" ... and IMO its no wonder that the biblical collection looks and feels like an anthology as opposed to a cohesive "chapterized" or "serialized"
treatise.

LCKob

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by think2much
what I seek is to understand more than I do...what I find in that search is- many obstacles. Can you understand that?

As a former Christian myself, I understand perfectly what you're talking about. If you continue to search, there may well come a time when you realize you no longer believe. The legions of ex-christians are filled with former ministers and theologians, so don't make the mistake of thinking it can't happen to you.

Thank you for your warning...but honestly, I am not above believing I could become decieved at worst, or just disillusioned in "religion", I know it happens all the time as you present, but I don't think in it all, in my search I'd become an ex-Christian-though I will admit at times my faith is challenged....but truly ZI'd be weak in my belief if I felt I couldn't be tested and prevail

Originally posted by spamandham
If you value faith, stop asking questions. However, if you value truth, proceed. If you continue down the path you are on, you may discover that the obstacles become more and more impassible until you suddenly realize you are on a different path.

I value BOTH. I find my faith is increased by seeking truth. It is sometimes a refining process, and thereby I do see that many seeking truth, find their faith thus challenged and it/they fall by the wayside...find themselves losing their way...lost...or as some may say on a different path entirely.

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by think2much
and I am blasted for some of the things I think of, believe, or seek...and in it, especially within Christianity itself-as when seeking things you go to authorites on the subject, right?

Asking questions is only allowed if you accept the pre-canned apologetic answers. You are expected to accept those answers without further question. To then question the answers is taken as a direct assault on the faith of whoever gave it to you. Expect a hostile response when you question someone's faith.

yes... directly hostile or condescending...I find this to be true...but then where do I seek truth and knowledge? Even when I come to places here, I find the same... when presented with "truth" that I am in error in my Christian beliefs, because of this fact or that, or this supposed fact or conclusion by other facts etc....and I disagree, and/or agree it could be true, or even is...but then I don't jump ship on my faith, then I am ignorant, rationalizing, blinded by my faith, etc. instead of realizing one error doesn't make an entire belief wrong

There is just no tolerance for everyone thinks they are right thus to not be with them you must be against them *sigh*

I am not hostile when someone questions my faith...especially if in a respectful way, so why would someone thus be to me, especially when I have a shared faith? (fellow Christians etc)

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by think2much
But no...I am not rationalizing...just seeking...

You admit that you formed your conclusion first and that it is not subject to change (so you think), and you are looking for answers that do not disrupt the fundamental conclusion. That's pretty much the definition of the word "rationalize".

AHA! Here is the root of our problem Spamandham..you are putting words in my mouth and thus I believe you have put thoughts in your head about the intentions of mine...please read the following carefully.

YES, I HAVE formed my conclusion thus far...that is a fact of my progress thus far and my faith...and no, I don't think fundamentally it is "subject to change" in the fact I believe in God and Jesus....but my faith like my pursuit of knowledge is progressive like it should be, so I continually seek truth...and because of my faith, I do believe at this point in my journey, that such truth will help me understand both God, and my faith better, but I do not seek to only find that which will not disrupt my fundamental conclusion thus far-I seek that as much as anything else.

Now, as far as not believing anything I come across can or will change my fundamental belief, that is my faith-I'd be weak of faith if I stood on a foundation of " Well maybe...until proven otherwise"...instead of "I believe...unless proven otherwise...which I doubt can be done...or I'd have no real faith to begin with"

and when you say

and you are looking for answers that do not disrupt the fundamental conclusion.

I'd say this is where you are entirely misunderstanding me. If this is your impression it is in error I guarantee you.

Just because I don't agree with some things proposed that might disrupt my fundamental conclusion...or make me doubt my faith in other words, doesn't mean I am only seeking for things that would confirm my fundamental conclusion or that I would discount anything that doesn't confirm what I believe...on the contrary, I love to ponder possibilities I haven't before, or theories I knew not of...I love to consider all from all aspects... what I find though, is thus far, nothing I have come across (obviously) derails my faith...even when it sometimes tests it.

...but I seek those tests of my faith, believe it or not, more than any pat confirmations. So you are in error thinking I seek only to find that which does not disrupt my fundamental conclusions, for on the contrary, I do often seek that which DOES disrupt those fundaental conclusions...

after seeking and finding such, and pondering them, praying about them, etc...I often find through even some doubt that crops up, in the end...thus far...it makes me stronger...my fundamental beliefs, so truly, as much as confirmation of my fundamental beliefs are when handed to me on a silver platter...I do prefer that which challegnes my faith so I can truly grow.

I do seek is truth, and education, and clarification, and tolerance from all sides. So that I may grow as an individual and test my faith, as untested faith rarely grows...what I too often find is prejudice, intolerance, ignorance, confusion and lies.

My faith has been tested, I will admit to this. I have questioned Christianity, I have questioned my perceptions and beliefs of Christianity. I have questioned belief in God entirely...time and again... I seek that which does this, not that which does not....I have what does not...belief...I could stop right here...I don't seek because my faith is weak either and I need more knowledge to confrim what I want to believe or do in some small way...but in all things to grow, progress, become learned and educated ...to never become complacent...

to deny ignorance.

Originally posted by spamandham
Faith and rationalization go hand in hand for those who do not really have faith. Your desire to rationalize demonstrates that deep down you know faith is not a valid means of obtaining knowledge.

I am sorry S&M, it just seems to me sometimes you are rationalizing how you believe "belivers" rationalize!

Indeed If faith were a valid means of obtaining knowledge, I wouldn't be seeking for knowledge, as I do have strong faith.

Nor would I be seeking it here...in mixed company so to speak...would I?

So I will agree with you there, you make my point for me to some degree...though through faith I believe we have a deeper understanding of things, and knowledge sifted through faith can become quite enlightening

However as I have said, my seeking knowledge is not because my faith waivers, nor because I need to find confirmation of my fundamental beliefs, it is because I want to GROW and LEARN and UNDERSTAND and CHALLENGE what I've been taught, what I believe, why, and understand other possibilites...even contradictory ones...

I do believe you are correct in assuming many rationalize and that many in seeking knolwedge find themselves without their faith, and/or on an entirely different path...I do not believe this is because of a fact that truth or knowledge beats faith though and that anything else is rationalization.

I believe weak faith rarely has a chance to begin with, if it goes seeking understanding, or for knowledge or "truth" it can't understand...or on roads that will challenge it, and when weak faith is tested, it often faulters...it often fails...and so often it is the weak in faith that do go seeking...trying to find confirmation, or rationalizing when they can't, and which fail fails when challenged in such a search. EVen former minsters can be weak of faith, so it surprises me not they fall...and likewise, even the strongest in faith, can loose their footing if in the dark too long...

Since reading Ghaele's and Orangetom's posts I have a new perspective of the Old testiment any understandings of things I didn't have before...these are truths I believe, this is education I seek, and found...but it doesn't disrupt my fundamental belief...

I am sorry...by why must there be some who think I rationalize if I just don't throw away my belief system, or beliefs and believe as the "others" who are so enlightened not to believe as I do?

I say they rationalize in the same light, what they already believe, and part of your accusation to me is evidence of this rationalized belief of yours in a way, you know? That you are right, and that can't change, and you've been where I am...and you know without a doubt I am in error, and nothing can change your mind about Chrstianity being in error since you once were one...

and/or in that train of though I often find the belief that... if I don't get to where you are...then I am rationalizing...was never really seeking real truth anyway...if I can have my faith strengthened by that which challenges or challenged yours, or others, than I am rationalizing.

This is not an attack on you. It's just what I perceive. It's hyppocritical I think.

Now just because I don't quickly abandon my beliefs by the same ol' arguemnets I have seen before, or even if something is newly proposed to me to consider and I find it contrary to what I have known or believed to be true...but find it TRUE...

but it still doesn't cause me to abandon ALL my beliefs or my fundamental ones...

belieivng one misconcpetion doesn't mean my entire belief system is in error or something...

just because I can take in and absorb additional truth and realize it doesn't change what I fundamentally believe, even if it changes how I understand things, or perceive religion, or mainstream Christianity, etc...I am rationalizing...or am I growing?

So to you, it seems to me, anyone who seeks...is only rationalizing and seeking to find what validates them... or /because if truly seeking they will find they are in error, jump ship, or find themselves on another path entirely...

That is such a blight perception of others seeking truth, and so sad spamandham, especially I am truly sorry for your lost faith.

There are some of us-even Christians- who seek...and find...even truths that discredit the religion of man of Christianity in some way...not as the truth of it in Christ, but how the religion is sometims flawed, and still can consider all things... and even question our own faith....and have it questined and tested....

...but still find that when all is said and done (so far) we are still standing as a Christian...with or without the world agreeing with us...Christians or Non-Christians...or ANti-Christians etc...

I don't think there is anything wrong with that.

But trust me, I also realize the road to apostasy is a slow and beguiling one...I've lived contray to my faith in many ways this past year, had it tested in many ways, and even took a hiatus from many of my morals at times...however I've picked myself up and dusted myself, and my scriptures off...and trudge along...even bring my search here....

[edit on 7-1-2006 by think2much]

[edit on 7-1-2006 by think2much]

think2much

But no...I am not rationalizing...just seeking...

Spamandham:

You admit that you formed your conclusion first and that it is not subject to change (so you think), and you are looking for answers that do not disrupt the fundamental conclusion. That's pretty much the definition of the word "rationalize".

AHA! Here is the root of our problem Spamandham..you are putting words in my mouth and thus I believe you have put thoughts in your head about the intentions of mine...please read the following carefully.

YES, I HAVE formed my conclusion thus far...that is a fact of my progress thus far and my faith...and no, I don't think fundamentally it is "subject to change" in the fact I believe in God and Jesus....but my faith like my pursuit of knowledge is progressive like it should be, so I continually seek truth...and because of my faith, I do believe at this point in my journey, that such truth will help me understand both God, and my faith better, but I do not seek to only find that which will not disrupt my fundamental conclusion thus far-I seek that as much as anything else.

LCKob:

Well, I have no problems if do you promote the possibility that there is no god in your quest ...

... but if your conclusion is absolute in regards of the presense of such a diety then I am forced to agree with spamandam in that your argument is specious in quality because the conclusion would never be in contention ... merely the details to the conclusion or as Abraham Maslow put it:

"He that is good with a hammer tends to think everything is a nail."

LCKob

It's good to post back to you again as it has been awhile.
I have posted again in Media and Education under the olde room title
"How to Control People" as something happened last night which got me going again. Perhapsed you would like to comment on this view.

As to your post to me on this thread I too am still learning. I have learned that this process will be a lifelong endevour. No let up.

As to the part about "I shall Hail, I shall conceal and never reveal. Not by mark , sign , step , or inscription. This is not Christianity.
Christianity is open..not hidden. This is part of a oath taken by Gnostic Adepts taken for the purpose of secrecy. This is known information in certain circles.
Contrast this with " take/swear no oath. Let your yes be yes and your no be no." Im not sure I phrased it exactly but I am sure you are familiar with it.

In certain parts of the Gnostic religions ..the religions of wise men , wizards you are admonished to keep secrets from all but those deemed worthy. Even other members if they are not worthy. This is not Christian practice.
When I detect that this is done by people professing to be Christain I tell them the difference in the two priesthoods.
If you want to take this further in spirit..you can ask them who teaches this lie which is not Christain? Who is the father of this lie..and when did they make the switch to the father of lies.??? It is that simple. This is precisely what the pharisees got caught in when they brought the woman caught in adultery before Jesus. They claimed to be keeping the Law of Moses in its entirety. Yet they brought a woman caught in adultery ..in the very act. They didnt bring the man. The Law of Moses says that they both shall be stoned. Not one. Right there they proved pubically that they had switched gods. and disobeyed the Law of Moses that they claimed to be keeping.
Instead they followed the father of lies and Jesus and previous phrophets told them this over and over. No wonder they had to kill him. You cant have the public figuring this out on thier own?? This will never be tolerated...no way!!
YOu can do this with many issues when you clearly see the intent of them.
Not just the Bible. You can however bring these issues back into the context of the Bible and Bible morality..which is what is not desired..by many posters on these boards.
This ....Thinks to Much is why the attempt of hijacking the Bible and bringing it under the Gnostic philosophys..which are mostly occult in nature. concealed ..hidden ..esoteric. in thier origins. Just as did the pharisees which were also Gnostic.
You must always question its veracity in every detail..to avoid the one issue...it is in Faith believing ..not in worldly values... Gnostics must always use the belief systems of men...the great wizards...philosophers...wise men. I have read Spinoza...Voltarie...Fredrick Neitzsche and others. They often have great tidbits in thier writings. But overall they are just writings of men. The faith is in the faith of men and mens writings and doings. I will soon go to Barns and Noble to purchase books on Marcus Aurelius having read short reference to this man by another writer named Matthew Arnold. This is just a arena I found myself curious about.
Spinoza was a jew...why he would give up the wealth of Hebrew history and knowlege for man made philosophy?? I dont quite know as the Hebrews had plenty of thier own on which to draw. Actuall I do know ..and so do you .

You are correct about the spirits..The Spirit of God..this Spirit is that which we use to test many things. If your doctrine and knowlege are hijacked without you knowing it ..you cannot test the spirits . Understand???
These are the two priesthoods.
One from men attempting to seduce us or overlay the traditions of men as if it was the Word of God..when it is no such thing. The pharisees are clear examples of this though there are many others doing the same thing. This continues from Olde Testament times and evidence unto today..right now..it is continuing in the New Testament without the knowlege and awareness of many who claim the name of Jesus the Christ for remission of sins. This is why I make the claim that many Christians are ignorant of many things ..even Christianity. Many of these non believers in these rooms are correct in this stance they sometimes propose. It hurts us but they are correct in this. Not all of us but a great many.
What they are not correct about is this attempt by many of them to pass gnosticism as Godly. The works and traditions of men. This is contrary to Faith. Capital F used here. Salt..capital S. Peace..capital P. Life capital L. All among His names.
Thinks to Much ..when you know this as a predictable pattern of which this world operates under you will see it over and over and over... The pattern of operation here is the tell tale of the source of this knowlege and the difference in the priesthoods and the diety. You can now go back to diffrent Bible verses and see that for which you missed the first time..though you have read them many many times before.
One more thing of importance..Think to much ..our Faith in this knowlege is not blind. It is Living. This is what it means to Believe..to be living is the translation of the word..Believe.

We are tasked as Believers to grow from Milk to strong meat..this is a on going process. We do not proceed at the same pace. One day it just becomes plain to us by Faith.

Another thing you need to understand by the term Hijack is that in many pagan occult religions ..or social structures the politics of these nations lended themselves if they could not outwardly take a competing nation by open warefare..they would often infiltrate them and overtake them privily from the inside. Then quietly melding these systems into thier own. This is a classic example of how Rome often conquered some of the outlying nations. Battleless victorys.
This is currently being done with Christianity and the pace is accelerating.
This world is attempting to weaken all the standards and moral postitions of Christinaity and substitute the positions and morality of the world as if this substitution is in fact Christian. I do not feel that I need to clarify this to you ..it is obvious...and all around you. Watch the manner in which many in these rooms try to sew questions in your mind to get you to debate this worldly position and that worldly position ...but stay away from the principles of the Word ..and use the logic and wisdom of men..the traditions of men
I will close ,Think to Much with this line of thought. Christianity is a anti social religion. By anti social..I mean sectarian. Sect ..come out from amongst them and be ye seperate sayeth the Lord. IN the Olde Testament ..do not do as the nations surrounding you did..
We are not to take on the appearence and values of this world. Sect is not a word used by Christians in the early days but by the pagans to describe them when they were being investigated by Roman authoritys. The Romans were correct in the usage of this term.

All attempts in this room and others will be to compare you and your beliefs to the standards of this world...by the standards of this world..this should be clear to you. Never will you see this done by these peoples from a biblical format or base. Even though many of these people know more scripture than most of us. No doubt about this. Just something you need to be aware of when making replys and getting in long dissertations.
In a spiritual term.or format you are debating with dead people. spiritually dead..they answer to another spirit. This often gives offense, not intended but it is the way things are. Nothing we can do about it. Nor they.

Good to post to you again..Think to Much,
Hope this helps with your questions.
Thanks,
Orangetom

Originally posted by think2much
I do not seek to only find that which will not disrupt my fundamental conclusion thus far-I seek that as much as anything else.

My misunderstanding then. Please accept my apologies.

Originally posted by think2much

I am sorry S&M, it just seems to me sometimes you are rationalizing how you believe "belivers" rationalize!

If I didn't have first hand experience with it, I'd have to agree with you.

Originally posted by think2much
I believe weak faith rarely has a chance to begin with, if it goes seeking understanding, or for knowledge or "truth" it can't understand...or on roads that will challenge it, and when weak faith is tested, it often faulters...it often fails...and so often it is the weak in faith that do go seeking...

You seem to have the impression that strength of faith is a good thing. I'm curious why you believe that (assuming I haven't misread you once again).

Originally posted by think2much
I say they rationalize in the same light, what they already believe, and part of your accusation to me is evidence of this rationalized belief of yours in a way, you know? That you are right, and that can't change, and you've been where I am...and you know without a doubt I am in error, and nothing can change your mind about Chrstianity being in error since you once were one...

I'm glad I'm not the only one here capable of misreading others. I don't recall claiming nor even implying that my position can never change. I would think that going from Christain to atheist would be rather solid evidence to the contrary.

Originally posted by think2much
So to you, it seems to me, anyone who seeks...is only rationalizing and seeking to find what validates them...

Having witnessed many people (myself included) seek and subsequently change their positions, I don't consider seeking to be rationalization. I merely misunderstood the things you had said. It sounded like you were only willing to consider that which supported your position.

Of course, you do admit you have faith. I'm curious what you think the word "faith" means.

Orangetom-I understand most of what you say, and appreciate all you say.

I always find you informative and interesting and you give me food for thought as much as those who have contradictory beliefs...rarely do I find that in fellow believers...but then again...in fellow believers...I'm not always sure what it is they believe or how or by what spirit...

I might not always understand all your perspectives, but then again, you have earned them...

I cannot borrow your light

but I like what it illuminates for me

if you know what I mean.

Not to be ambiguous for anyone's sake, but somethings I just can't find other words for.

Thanks Orangetom

just in case anyone is expecting a general response time from me < ahem, LCKob > I will reply back to you both soon, but may not be until sometime Monday

But I'm thinking of you

Seriously, I did read your posts, just have to go nitey night soon-sleeping pills have kicked in and I'd probably make even less sense than usual, so TTYL

Originally posted by think2much
just in case anyone is expecting a general response time from me < ahem, LCKob >

I will reply back to you both soon, but may not be until sometime Monday

But I'm thinking of you

Seriously, I did read your posts, just have to go nitey night soon-sleeping pills have kicked in

and I'd probably make even less sense than usual, so TTYL

HAHA ... No problem!

LCkob

Your certainly welcome.
I am glad to be of some help. The trail we walk is a lifelong work and often as it was in the days of the ancients.. a lonely walk.

At some point ..you become aware of how few we really are in this world.
No problem with this. I suspect it has always been this way.
Keep it Salty. We are the Salt of the earth ..not the sugar.

Yours in His Name.
Jesus the Christ for remission of sins,
Orangetom

Originally posted by LCKob

Well, I have no problems if do you promote the possibility that there is no god in your quest ...

I don't know if I'd say I promote the possibility that there is no god in my quest LCKob...as much as I allow for that possibility.

See there goes my perceptual problem with semantics!

But yes, in my search I allow/have allowed for such a possibility that there is no god, or none such as we perceive him/one/it etc.

I've even gone the route to thinking god is a misconception and a man made answer for universal laws and truths to have an author...

however what happened in those periods is instead of that possibility being confirmed to me, instead I had my understanding expounded upon.

The answer I got was that God isn't the author of all universal law and truths, but is subject to may of them as well as we.

He does teach of them in his own ways, warn of consequences, etc...but He too is bound by many/most/all of them as well

However, He does have his own laws for His creations for which we are bound exclusively as his creations with awareness I believe. I believe, not without free will are we bound, but bound to be subject by the reactions to our actions of our free will when we defy those laws...or subject to consequences when we do...this is true not just for his laws but universal ones

Originally posted by LCKob
... but if your conclusion is absolute in regards of the presense of such a diety then I am forced to agree with spamandam in that your argument is specious in quality because the conclusion would never be in contention ... merely the details to the conclusion or as Abraham Maslow put it:

"He that is good with a hammer tends to think everything is a nail."

... well, let me just say that I don't know that I nail everything...or try to

Seriously, though I wont say I'm wondering *if* there is a God...as right now I believe there is , and who he is...I do honestly and with much heart and soul searching, as well as analytical intellectual thinking- consider the possibiliteis people provide me with-whatever they may be....even if they ask me to consider there is no god, or my interpretation is wrong etc...when they do...I don't argue that-I consider what they want me to

Too often though I am not presented with anything to consider-just blasted for what I believe-or told I am in error and why... as in "You are a stupid ignorant Christian/god believer, and this is why you are so stupid and why there is no god and if you can't see that I/we are correct in this then you are just too blind and stupid because anyone with half a brain can see all this logical *proof* there is no God...." etc...

But my question is not that of *if* there is a god or the possibility there is not one in my search right now anyway

Plus, so far, trust me, at different times I have questioned what I believed entirely, and if I was in error etc...and have been/ believed in error before admittedly too...and so I continue to believe I *could* be in error of my belief...ANY of them...I am human and know I could be *wrong* at any moment in time

...but I am not out to confrirm what I believe as for the existance of god right now...I seek within my belief of God, what I believe in general... to find what is true and what is error...what is deciet, what is covered up etc...and by whom... and for what/to what end?...hense this thread

Now, having the belief in the basics of what I believe to be true, and having my faith strengthened thus far by my search, my errors, etc...I can stand on the foundation that I believe in God...and proclaim that.

I don't seek to find confirmation of his existance, however if someone (not yet happended) could make me believe stronger in the truth of no God, than truth in God or a god...then I'd progress in that direction...just hasn't happened...or not for long or recently. Make sense?

Well I take that back when I say not recently, as admittedly I often pause and question...am I decived? Self decieivng...but those moments of doubt don't last long.

think2much:

I don't know if I'd say I promote the possibility that there is no god in my quest LCKob...as much as I allow for that possibility.

LCKob:

If you seek the truth from the basis of all possibilities, then as I have said, I would have no fundemental problems with your view. In fact, this definition is close to what I subscribe to ... the difference in the case of you and I IMO ... is on just which side of the "half empty/half full glass we are on. ... well off to work now ... I will read your post more in depth later during lunch break for better understanding of the finer points.

The only duality is the struggle between the two dogmas..the two priesthoods trying to do the work of thier god and God.

This is the struggle recorded from the first page of the Word to the Last.

The logic of men will try to shift this duality to the works of men...by mens logic and reason. The record of disobedience among the Children of Israel is always a variation of playing on this duality found in the "traditions of men"...not Gods singularness...Oneness.

By THE God of the Bible it will be shifted by Faith..for His purposes not ours.

The concept of not judging lest ye be judged...is often used to keep believers neutral and others to play through. This is part of the duality of men.
Believers are to judge everything by the word..to judge rightous judgement. If they are not diciplined in this they will follow the way of the world..to mix new wine with olde..leven with unleven. They will not know when to put the disobedient out of the church. They will fall into the duality of men and not the Oneness of God.

God is always One in this ..

Thanks,
Orangetom