@toptech777 I have a feeling no matter what I say, the smarter it sounds the more you will shake your head, since it doesn't conform to your dogma. You've so far on all my videos not made any points, just vague references to "the truth" being out there. You want to have a discussion, actually make a point, ask questions, don't make comments from scripture that are nothing more than baseless assertions. Make an actual point based in some sort of fact.
@Drkstar4life I think you'll need to be a bit more specific. I'm also not whining, just giving an objective review. I reviewed another one of these videos "The Perfect Stranger" much more favorably.
she's a WHORE!, you visit her every sunday & she deceives you with religion she takes all your money & tells you it's for God, she tells you God has no laws & that God loves everyone including you, she makes love to you & you lose your mind until your over come with complete deceit. who is this whore? The catholic church, who gave the whole world religion she is the whore is the bible & christianity is from the catholic church. THE BIBLE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION.
christianity is religion & has nothing to do with the bible, the bible has laws & christian DON'T! do any laws in the bible, so go back & tell your step father he is in a false religion & that if he cuts the grass & clean his house on Saturday he is no different than you! christian go to church on Sunday, there is no sunday worship in the bible, God law is keep the Sabbath Day (Saturday) Not Sunday, now from here he'll say every day is Gods worship day, That is an excuse to do what they want to
If you can bear the pacing of a European movie I highly recommend the Russian film "Ostrov" for a glimpse into the Christianity that Archbishop Lazar is a proponent of. It's a fine film and piece of art in its own right, but also a good vignette of Orthodox Christianity.
I hate to say this, but I think your stepfather is a jerk. By giving you these movies, he's implicitly saying that you're a bad person and you're going to hell if you don't repent. He doesn't show any respect for you.
I'm sorry if I offended you, but this is how I see it.
Ha! I don't get upset for someone telling the truth, so don't worry, ;-). He can be a bit of a jerk sometimes.
You should watch my "Faith = Close-mindedness video" It's kinda the prelude to this and his arrogance, bias, and illogical position make for hilarious and sad entertainment.
This was sorta part of me going to his house so he could talk to me about religion, since he originally said he'd work with me on the bible soon as I believed it was 100% true.
It might well be, I think Americans of African descent often have unusual names. Anyway, he did this project way back where he asked all atheists why they were atheists, and all Christians why they were Christians. IMO, the coolest reply was from Azrienoch...
nice one! Well at least that DVD will make a nice drinks coaster if nothing else. Seems you were having some hissy audio probs there by the way. Great info though.
Lee Strobels case for christ I thought was good. It was his 1st book about his move from lack of belief to belief. But as far as I can tell everything from there went downhill. I haven't read any of his other stuff in entirety but I started to read "case for creator" and it was really biased. His other works appear to follow suite based on reviews I've seen. But I would have to say that Case for Christ was well done and fairly objective.
My main knowledge comes from "The Case for Easter". The conversation in there with him and the medical expert I believed seemed almost as contrived as the conversation in this movie.
I think Resurrectionists spend so much time debating the worst critiques of their belief, almost like a strawman, but not exactly, since these are criticisms, they're just the easiet to knock down.
Thanks for pointing your viewers to allsaintsmonastery. I'm glad to see that more people will be opened up to the hidden face of christianity for once. Truly you are as your name describes - an honest discussioner.
I find that the capacity for Christians to engage atheists in a receptive matter is largely absent. I think the reason lies in the fragmentation of Christian sects, expecially on the protestant side. We've spent so much time debating each other that we've lost touch with those who don't carry the same unifying basic assumptions of Christianity.
I can't imagine how that movie could possibly engage atheists. It carries the same strategy Christian Sect A uses to debate Chrstian Sect B.
That's not entirely true. Only the first is accurate with the exception of fundamentalist christian groups, to which all 4 are accurate. The Orthodox Church does not believe that God put His will forth in writing, because one can not understand His will entirely through the written works. This being said premise 3 and 4 are no longer applicable strictly to written works.
Yes, it would still apply that God communicated but that doesn't necessarily mean that it was done or is being done specifically through Christian sources alone.
Yes, but those are called "gnostics" which means that they think they know the essence of God and that they have a special relationship with the Father which is heresy. A Christian who actually knows what he's talking about will tell you the only relationship we have with God is through Jesus, the Son, and so we cannot know the essence of God, nor can we have a special relationship with the Father because the Son is the mediator between us.
But that's the same thing: the only way to the father is through the son, thus giving anyone who knows the son the best possible knowledge there is on the father.
alright, let me revise my statement then. Most Christians stem from gnostic roots (Protestantism is founded on the gnostic writings of Augustine as interpreted by Martin Luther and later Calvin etc.). Since most Christians are gnostics, I have agreed with you, they will claim this. But having the best possible knowledge and knowing the best possible knowledge are two very different things, to which I should say that modesty and humble demeanor should be exercised.
Actually, AFIK, there are more Catholics than Protestants. At any rate, either group claims to know more about god or Jesus than everyone else does. Otherwise, they would not feel the need to spread the faith.
And Catholics consider Augustine a saint for his exegesis of Paul's letter to the Romans going so far as to say that he was the only one who could understand what Paul wrote despite the fact that Augustine didn't know greek
Despite that, the faith they spread is that people need to be saved in a juridical sense. In other words, we are guilty and someone has been punished for us. The term "saved" and "redeemed" in the greek is understood as it was in the hebrew - in the same sense as the Jewish Jubilee. We have ALL been redeemed from bondage - Christian and non-Christian alike. You are not saved after accepting Jesus, you can only accept Jesus because you've been saved.
Ummm...that sounds fairly unconventional. I think most Christian sects will most likely disagree with such an interpretation. It means that you really don't _have_ to accept Jesus at all.
If you diligently seek cooperation with the divine and uncreated energies of God, knowing that Jesus is the Son of God, and that He is the mediator between us and God, then you would accept Jesus. Just because we've been redeemed out of our bondage to sin, it doesn't mean that we aren't free to indulge ourselves in selfishness as well.
Not quite. I'm saying that proper secular lingual interpretations and secular study of culture and beliefs at the time of Jesus would reveal a different meaning of "save" and "redeem" than that of the language we understand today in english renditions. Anyone, Christian or non-Christian can know this information, so it's not something that Christians can really claim they possess as it was not given to Christians, but to the world.
That claim can't be successfully defended though, so the person or people who claim it are either lying (which goes against the teachings of Jesus, meaning that they who claim this have failed to see this true meaning), or just don't know any better.
What about Paul? IIRC a lot of todays Christian theology actually comes from the Apostle Paul. He was the one who caused Jesus to be viewed the way he is today, I think.
Paul was a fantastic preacher, but you'll notice that all the letters that Paul wrote was to correct practices that were dissenting from sacred tradition which was the sole basis through which the church was spread and was first established through the Divine Liturgy. Scripture was still being written at the time, but was not yet scrutinized by the tradition. Today's theology is the result of insisting that the books came first, when really they didn't.
The moment someone insists that the books dictate tradition, not tradition the books, the interpretations of these books become completely subjective, meaning there is no solid message anymore and the book will say whatever you make it say. That's a dangerous practice.
So what is tradition, in this case? Is it literally "what people do because that's what they've always done"? Because that would make it kind of confusing. Or is it supposed to be based on something substantial, which can be backed up. Because that's how it _should_ work if you based it on books (never mind the books in question being contradictory).
I wouldn't say that it's what people do because they've always done it like that. I would say that it's more like the scientific method (which happens to be the tradition through which one scrutinizes natural phenoma to come to a working model of reality). If I were to take all of the scientific findings and said that they predated the method through which they were found, I'd have a very large problem trying to explain those findings
Now, about the contradictions in the books of the bible. They (the books) are contradictory only on the basis of perspective, not on substance and meaning. If they were contradictory in any major way, then surely those who studied it's texts would have picked up on it and mentioned it within the last almost 2000 years. If you would be more specific on the contradictions, we could discuss them.
Not if those who studied them started out assuming that they couldn't contradict each other. Also, some people have pointed it out, especially in recent centuries (or I wouldn't know). For instance: According to some parts of the scriptures, sin and punishment are inherited (and this is the conventional interpretation). But it says in Ezekiel 18:20 that sons, in fact, will _not_ be punished (by god) for the deeds of their father, and vice versa.
The scriptures do not say that sin is inherited, but that sin is learned. This is why you hear the "apple doesn't fall far from the tree" analogy. Ezekiel is right. Where does it show that sin is inherited?
Doesn't it say in several places that "we're all born sinners" and therefore have to repent no matter what we do? i think, among others King David said this. And in the old testament it states that the crimes of Adam and Eve will spoil their descendents for a 1000 generations or some such.
First and foremost, one must establish the time period a work was written. The next thing to do is to establish the culture and tradition at the time and how it would effect the perspective of the writer. Third, establish the intended audience. Fourth, establish the author's intent. Fifth, establish how the written work compares to the established faith of the church (does it agree with revelation?).
The moment that the interpretation is dependent on prior revelation, it ceases to be subjectively interpretable. To say that it can be subjectively interpretable is the same as saying that aerodynamics can be understood apart from gravity.
In theory, perhaps. But because no one sticks with the rules, the original convention soon becomes muddled. Gravity will always be fairly straightforward (though it's consequences might not).
But, if you have to consider, rather than what is said, all those things that might have gone into it being said, how do you expect a large number of people to arrive at similar conclusions? Furthermore, a divine messager, should, unlike everyone else, be able to see beyond his time or perspective...
let me put it this way: A divine message should have no context. It should be simple and universally true. Therefore, with a true divine source, the only thing that should matter is the exact words.
Any message (divine or not) that has no context, is no message at all because it would be indecipherable. If you would like, I'll provide a more lengthy explanation of biblical context and how the message actually IS simple and universally true through a PM.
But, being part of a divine scheme, the group involved should already have had a solution to this problem ahead of time, knowing that people would re-interpret it.
The Church did have a solution ahead of time - the sacred tradition. It is the abandonment of the sacred tradition that leads to subjective and flawed interpretations of scripture because it is the method through which the scriptures were determined to be authoritative.
The Founder has redeemed us out of our bondage to sin, same as He redeemed Israel out of their bondage to Pharaoh. The solution has held true for us in the Church till today, and will persist so long as we observe it honestly, with integrity and the open heart to understand that God doesn't always agree with our personal desires.
yeah, like in the South Park Episode "Night of the Living Homeless" where the scientist shoots himself in the head about 20 times in order to avoid becoming "one of them". To learn better ways of killing yourself, watch the German movie "Downfall"!
Holy! That man has about the best beard ever to grace the face of a person or beast! While you may not be able to envy him yet, I certainly do. I almost want to befriend the guy in some grand kindred way so that he imparts it to me in his will.
Wow. That Gandolf fellow could be quite interesting. The wood paneling in the room looked kinda familiar. Like a cottage I've rented on vacation in the past. Somewhat theraputic in effect me thinks.
Hi, HonestDiscussioner. I don't envy your position of having to endure those movies. I know, you say, you're not afraid of information, but, sometimes, it can be...imparted in ways that can border on, shall we say, the "enhanced interogation technique" approach. You wouldn't be willing to try "water boarding" would you? Sorry, I couldn't resist. I actually hope you find some kind of redeaming element in the remaining movies. Bon voyage.
It would be nice if these religious types would put aside their guilt and try and meet us half way, have a nice discussion and try to understand our point of view.
Not that there aren't any of those types, just too few.
Well the channel I mention is one of those types. He's just fun to listen to.
Obviously we disagree on whether or not Christianity is true, but believe me . . we wouldn't give a shit if the entirety of Christianity was like this.
Proverbs 24:7
Wisdom is too high for a fool; in the assembly at the gate he has nothing to say.
toptech777 1 year ago
@toptech777 I have a feeling no matter what I say, the smarter it sounds the more you will shake your head, since it doesn't conform to your dogma. You've so far on all my videos not made any points, just vague references to "the truth" being out there. You want to have a discussion, actually make a point, ask questions, don't make comments from scripture that are nothing more than baseless assertions. Make an actual point based in some sort of fact.
HonestDiscussioner 1 year ago
Your stupid don't comment back till u understand. I don't waste my time with whining children.
Drkstar4life 1 year ago
@Drkstar4life I think you'll need to be a bit more specific. I'm also not whining, just giving an objective review. I reviewed another one of these videos "The Perfect Stranger" much more favorably.
Perhaps you are the one that doesn't understand.
HonestDiscussioner 1 year ago
she's a WHORE!, you visit her every sunday & she deceives you with religion she takes all your money & tells you it's for God, she tells you God has no laws & that God loves everyone including you, she makes love to you & you lose your mind until your over come with complete deceit. who is this whore? The catholic church, who gave the whole world religion she is the whore is the bible & christianity is from the catholic church. THE BIBLE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION.
TheVee909 1 year ago
@TheVee909 I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
How can you know what are you supposed to do as a Christian if you don't use anything in the Bible?
HonestDiscussioner 1 year ago
christianity is religion & has nothing to do with the bible, the bible has laws & christian DON'T! do any laws in the bible, so go back & tell your step father he is in a false religion & that if he cuts the grass & clean his house on Saturday he is no different than you! christian go to church on Sunday, there is no sunday worship in the bible, God law is keep the Sabbath Day (Saturday) Not Sunday, now from here he'll say every day is Gods worship day, That is an excuse to do what they want to
TheVee909 1 year ago
i wanna shot myself from thetrailer
blingking880 2 years ago
Ha. Try watching the entire thing.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
I think most of us contemplated suicide at 0:23 - 0:26.
ilbill220 2 years ago
Sorry, more like 0:22 - 0:28.
ilbill220 2 years ago
I hear hari kari is pretty cool.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
I wonder what the correlation is between these films and the soviet propaganda romances of the fifties would be.
brandonbdx 2 years ago
If you can bear the pacing of a European movie I highly recommend the Russian film "Ostrov" for a glimpse into the Christianity that Archbishop Lazar is a proponent of. It's a fine film and piece of art in its own right, but also a good vignette of Orthodox Christianity.
rpankey 2 years ago
Is it in Russian? Because if so, I'm am going to feel so special being able to understand it. Win!
ilbill220 2 years ago
I hate to say this, but I think your stepfather is a jerk. By giving you these movies, he's implicitly saying that you're a bad person and you're going to hell if you don't repent. He doesn't show any respect for you.
I'm sorry if I offended you, but this is how I see it.
Rettequetette 2 years ago
Ha! I don't get upset for someone telling the truth, so don't worry, ;-). He can be a bit of a jerk sometimes.
You should watch my "Faith = Close-mindedness video" It's kinda the prelude to this and his arrogance, bias, and illogical position make for hilarious and sad entertainment.
This was sorta part of me going to his house so he could talk to me about religion, since he originally said he'd work with me on the bible soon as I believed it was 100% true.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
Another great christian guy is davlupi
Be sure to check him out
rulezdaworld0 2 years ago
You're not just a heathen who's going to hell, you're awesome. I look forward to checking your other vids.
DblOSmith 2 years ago
And yet here is this movie making sure that doesn't happen.
I appreciate those like you and Wildcard and AllSaintsMonestary trying to bridge the gap.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
can they be? or will that threaten their belief system?
Brandt761 2 years ago
As far as intelligent religious channels go, have you checked out Jthunder? Pastor Javid has some pretty good stuff to say.
Brandt761 2 years ago
I've heard of Javid through JF and Yokeup arguing over him. Is his name really Javid?
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
It might well be, I think Americans of African descent often have unusual names. Anyway, he did this project way back where he asked all atheists why they were atheists, and all Christians why they were Christians. IMO, the coolest reply was from Azrienoch...
Brandt761 2 years ago
i saw this movie...
the pinnacle of religious stupidity
yamimakaiz 2 years ago
a lot of noise at your home...
tasehagi 2 years ago
Yea, it's called my air conditioner. Sorry. I have a wall unit.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
nice one! Well at least that DVD will make a nice drinks coaster if nothing else. Seems you were having some hissy audio probs there by the way. Great info though.
kalsolarUK 2 years ago
Yea, it's called my air conditioner. Sorry. I have a wall unit.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
Lee Strobels case for christ I thought was good. It was his 1st book about his move from lack of belief to belief. But as far as I can tell everything from there went downhill. I haven't read any of his other stuff in entirety but I started to read "case for creator" and it was really biased. His other works appear to follow suite based on reviews I've seen. But I would have to say that Case for Christ was well done and fairly objective.
plindy101 2 years ago
My main knowledge comes from "The Case for Easter". The conversation in there with him and the medical expert I believed seemed almost as contrived as the conversation in this movie.
I think Resurrectionists spend so much time debating the worst critiques of their belief, almost like a strawman, but not exactly, since these are criticisms, they're just the easiet to knock down.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
Christianity = Groan-inducing garbage.
There's nothing so simultaneously hilarious and awful as Christian attempts at contemporary art.
WizardJim 2 years ago
Thanks for pointing your viewers to allsaintsmonastery. I'm glad to see that more people will be opened up to the hidden face of christianity for once. Truly you are as your name describes - an honest discussioner.
gambleor 2 years ago
Oh wow I'm so surprised someone call me dishonest dis . . oh wait . . . you were agreeing with my name?
Sorry, I'm so used to being called "dishonestdiscussioner" it 's surprising to see otherwise.
P.S.- I knew what you were doing, I was just making a joke.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
I find that the capacity for Christians to engage atheists in a receptive matter is largely absent. I think the reason lies in the fragmentation of Christian sects, expecially on the protestant side. We've spent so much time debating each other that we've lost touch with those who don't carry the same unifying basic assumptions of Christianity.
I can't imagine how that movie could possibly engage atheists. It carries the same strategy Christian Sect A uses to debate Chrstian Sect B.
UNFFwildcard 2 years ago
One cannot engage atheists with the same techniques and strategies one Christian uses to engage another. It simply doesn't work.
BTW, thanks for introducing me to allsaintsmonastary! The guy (and his beard) is awesome! :D
UNFFwildcard 2 years ago
"Orthodoxy is kinda like Catholism except without all the guilt"
I have to admit, I lol'ed at that.
UNFFwildcard 2 years ago
No, one can's.
There are 4 basic assumptions that all Christians accept, which atheists do not:
1, There is a deity or creator of some sort.
2. This deity cared enough to put forth his will in writing.
3. One religious group among the millions out there has control of this knowledge.
4. That group is Christian.
Brandt761 2 years ago
That's not entirely true. Only the first is accurate with the exception of fundamentalist christian groups, to which all 4 are accurate. The Orthodox Church does not believe that God put His will forth in writing, because one can not understand His will entirely through the written works. This being said premise 3 and 4 are no longer applicable strictly to written works.
gambleor 2 years ago
Okay, to but it still applies that this deity made some kind of effort at communication.
Brandt761 2 years ago
Yes, it would still apply that God communicated but that doesn't necessarily mean that it was done or is being done specifically through Christian sources alone.
gambleor 2 years ago
I think most Christian churches would say they specifically have the best info on god.
Brandt761 2 years ago
Yes, but those are called "gnostics" which means that they think they know the essence of God and that they have a special relationship with the Father which is heresy. A Christian who actually knows what he's talking about will tell you the only relationship we have with God is through Jesus, the Son, and so we cannot know the essence of God, nor can we have a special relationship with the Father because the Son is the mediator between us.
gambleor 2 years ago
But that's the same thing: the only way to the father is through the son, thus giving anyone who knows the son the best possible knowledge there is on the father.
Brandt761 2 years ago
alright, let me revise my statement then. Most Christians stem from gnostic roots (Protestantism is founded on the gnostic writings of Augustine as interpreted by Martin Luther and later Calvin etc.). Since most Christians are gnostics, I have agreed with you, they will claim this. But having the best possible knowledge and knowing the best possible knowledge are two very different things, to which I should say that modesty and humble demeanor should be exercised.
gambleor 2 years ago
Actually, AFIK, there are more Catholics than Protestants. At any rate, either group claims to know more about god or Jesus than everyone else does. Otherwise, they would not feel the need to spread the faith.
Brandt761 2 years ago
And Catholics consider Augustine a saint for his exegesis of Paul's letter to the Romans going so far as to say that he was the only one who could understand what Paul wrote despite the fact that Augustine didn't know greek
gambleor 2 years ago
Despite that, the faith they spread is that people need to be saved in a juridical sense. In other words, we are guilty and someone has been punished for us. The term "saved" and "redeemed" in the greek is understood as it was in the hebrew - in the same sense as the Jewish Jubilee. We have ALL been redeemed from bondage - Christian and non-Christian alike. You are not saved after accepting Jesus, you can only accept Jesus because you've been saved.
gambleor 2 years ago
Ummm...that sounds fairly unconventional. I think most Christian sects will most likely disagree with such an interpretation. It means that you really don't _have_ to accept Jesus at all.
Brandt761 2 years ago
If you diligently seek cooperation with the divine and uncreated energies of God, knowing that Jesus is the Son of God, and that He is the mediator between us and God, then you would accept Jesus. Just because we've been redeemed out of our bondage to sin, it doesn't mean that we aren't free to indulge ourselves in selfishness as well.
gambleor 2 years ago
Of course, you're right. Most sects will disagree and do disagree. If they didn't, there wouldn't be sects at all.
gambleor 2 years ago
So...nevertheless, I would still need some kind of reason to believe you of all people on this matter. Thus point # 4.
Brandt761 2 years ago
Not me, the context of the words being used.
gambleor 2 years ago
Okay, so whoever is telling me this. I believe that's the point of a religion. But Christians do like to define themselves out of a corner.
Brandt761 2 years ago
Not quite. I'm saying that proper secular lingual interpretations and secular study of culture and beliefs at the time of Jesus would reveal a different meaning of "save" and "redeem" than that of the language we understand today in english renditions. Anyone, Christian or non-Christian can know this information, so it's not something that Christians can really claim they possess as it was not given to Christians, but to the world.
gambleor 2 years ago
I suppose so. But according to them, everyone else is failing to see or ignoring the "true meaning" of all this.
Brandt761 2 years ago
That claim can't be successfully defended though, so the person or people who claim it are either lying (which goes against the teachings of Jesus, meaning that they who claim this have failed to see this true meaning), or just don't know any better.
gambleor 2 years ago
What about Paul? IIRC a lot of todays Christian theology actually comes from the Apostle Paul. He was the one who caused Jesus to be viewed the way he is today, I think.
Brandt761 2 years ago
Paul was a fantastic preacher, but you'll notice that all the letters that Paul wrote was to correct practices that were dissenting from sacred tradition which was the sole basis through which the church was spread and was first established through the Divine Liturgy. Scripture was still being written at the time, but was not yet scrutinized by the tradition. Today's theology is the result of insisting that the books came first, when really they didn't.
gambleor 2 years ago
The moment someone insists that the books dictate tradition, not tradition the books, the interpretations of these books become completely subjective, meaning there is no solid message anymore and the book will say whatever you make it say. That's a dangerous practice.
gambleor 2 years ago
So what is tradition, in this case? Is it literally "what people do because that's what they've always done"? Because that would make it kind of confusing. Or is it supposed to be based on something substantial, which can be backed up. Because that's how it _should_ work if you based it on books (never mind the books in question being contradictory).
Brandt761 2 years ago
I wouldn't say that it's what people do because they've always done it like that. I would say that it's more like the scientific method (which happens to be the tradition through which one scrutinizes natural phenoma to come to a working model of reality). If I were to take all of the scientific findings and said that they predated the method through which they were found, I'd have a very large problem trying to explain those findings
gambleor 2 years ago
Now, about the contradictions in the books of the bible. They (the books) are contradictory only on the basis of perspective, not on substance and meaning. If they were contradictory in any major way, then surely those who studied it's texts would have picked up on it and mentioned it within the last almost 2000 years. If you would be more specific on the contradictions, we could discuss them.
gambleor 2 years ago
Not if those who studied them started out assuming that they couldn't contradict each other. Also, some people have pointed it out, especially in recent centuries (or I wouldn't know). For instance: According to some parts of the scriptures, sin and punishment are inherited (and this is the conventional interpretation). But it says in Ezekiel 18:20 that sons, in fact, will _not_ be punished (by god) for the deeds of their father, and vice versa.
Brandt761 2 years ago
The scriptures do not say that sin is inherited, but that sin is learned. This is why you hear the "apple doesn't fall far from the tree" analogy. Ezekiel is right. Where does it show that sin is inherited?
gambleor 2 years ago
Doesn't it say in several places that "we're all born sinners" and therefore have to repent no matter what we do? i think, among others King David said this. And in the old testament it states that the crimes of Adam and Eve will spoil their descendents for a 1000 generations or some such.
Brandt761 2 years ago
So what is the method through which the scriptures were created, and what are their scientific merits?
Brandt761 2 years ago
First and foremost, one must establish the time period a work was written. The next thing to do is to establish the culture and tradition at the time and how it would effect the perspective of the writer. Third, establish the intended audience. Fourth, establish the author's intent. Fifth, establish how the written work compares to the established faith of the church (does it agree with revelation?).
gambleor 2 years ago
And if all that doesn't make it a matter of personal interpretation (therefore imporssible to agree upon) then I don't know what would.
Brandt761 2 years ago
The moment that the interpretation is dependent on prior revelation, it ceases to be subjectively interpretable. To say that it can be subjectively interpretable is the same as saying that aerodynamics can be understood apart from gravity.
gambleor 2 years ago
In theory, perhaps. But because no one sticks with the rules, the original convention soon becomes muddled. Gravity will always be fairly straightforward (though it's consequences might not).
But, if you have to consider, rather than what is said, all those things that might have gone into it being said, how do you expect a large number of people to arrive at similar conclusions? Furthermore, a divine messager, should, unlike everyone else, be able to see beyond his time or perspective...
Brandt761 2 years ago
"But because no one sticks with the rules, the original convention soon becomes muddled."
-That's the whole point, isn't it? The fact that people aren't sticking to the rules makes for wrong interpretation.
gambleor 2 years ago
If you only consider what is said, then you are missing why it is being said and it has become useless as a narrative.
If the message of that divine Messenger is applicable to all times and all people, then He has seen beyond His time.
gambleor 2 years ago
let me put it this way: A divine message should have no context. It should be simple and universally true. Therefore, with a true divine source, the only thing that should matter is the exact words.
Brandt761 2 years ago
Any message (divine or not) that has no context, is no message at all because it would be indecipherable. If you would like, I'll provide a more lengthy explanation of biblical context and how the message actually IS simple and universally true through a PM.
gambleor 2 years ago
The whole thing about god is perfection, right? So why can't he devise a perfect message that everyone can understand.
You're welcome to PM me anytime if you think comments are too short. :)
Brandt761 2 years ago
Thank you, I hate to send a message to a specific person really because it limits the exposure of the conversation, but it's necessary in this case.
gambleor 2 years ago
But, being part of a divine scheme, the group involved should already have had a solution to this problem ahead of time, knowing that people would re-interpret it.
Brandt761 2 years ago
The Church did have a solution ahead of time - the sacred tradition. It is the abandonment of the sacred tradition that leads to subjective and flawed interpretations of scripture because it is the method through which the scriptures were determined to be authoritative.
gambleor 2 years ago
I mean a solution that won't go wrong. Their founder was infallible and could see indefitinely into the future.
Brandt761 2 years ago
The Founder has redeemed us out of our bondage to sin, same as He redeemed Israel out of their bondage to Pharaoh. The solution has held true for us in the Church till today, and will persist so long as we observe it honestly, with integrity and the open heart to understand that God doesn't always agree with our personal desires.
gambleor 2 years ago
That first movie looked so terrible it would make me want to put a gun to my head to end the pain
tomtomhungry 2 years ago
I'd have to disagree with you.
See, a gun is not always handy and often you can attempt to kill yourself and fail.
This made my want to spontaneously combust, I didn't want any chance of having to see this again it was that bad.
Seriously, if your in the mood for not being entertained and being appalled at the lack of skill and ability put into this movie . . watch it.
Otherwise RUN!
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
yeah, like in the South Park Episode "Night of the Living Homeless" where the scientist shoots himself in the head about 20 times in order to avoid becoming "one of them". To learn better ways of killing yourself, watch the German movie "Downfall"!
Brandt761 2 years ago
Holy! That man has about the best beard ever to grace the face of a person or beast! While you may not be able to envy him yet, I certainly do. I almost want to befriend the guy in some grand kindred way so that he imparts it to me in his will.
Demonaphia 2 years ago
Wow. That Gandolf fellow could be quite interesting. The wood paneling in the room looked kinda familiar. Like a cottage I've rented on vacation in the past. Somewhat theraputic in effect me thinks.
RichardRoy2 2 years ago
That shit looks great!!!! Good vid!!
BJOEYAK 2 years ago
Hi, HonestDiscussioner. I don't envy your position of having to endure those movies. I know, you say, you're not afraid of information, but, sometimes, it can be...imparted in ways that can border on, shall we say, the "enhanced interogation technique" approach. You wouldn't be willing to try "water boarding" would you? Sorry, I couldn't resist. I actually hope you find some kind of redeaming element in the remaining movies. Bon voyage.
RichardRoy2 2 years ago
That first movie looked like such rubbish.
It would be nice if these religious types would put aside their guilt and try and meet us half way, have a nice discussion and try to understand our point of view.
Not that there aren't any of those types, just too few.
rba718 2 years ago
Well the channel I mention is one of those types. He's just fun to listen to.
Obviously we disagree on whether or not Christianity is true, but believe me . . we wouldn't give a shit if the entirety of Christianity was like this.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago