by metatron 40 Replies latest jw friends
Six,
Your sarcasm is not missed. But I was in no way patting myself on the back. I was only pointing out the obvious meaning and implications of Christ's own words.
"But to others I speak in parables, so that though seeing they may not see and though hearing they may not understand." (Luke 8:10)
Do you have a better explanation of them?
Do I have a better explanation? Just that it is all quite confusing. Your commentary doesn't make it any less so. As for it being Christ own words, Christ didn't do any writing evidently, so we don't really know Christ own words now do we?
Here is something you skipped, the "But when he was alone with his own disciples he explained everything" part.
Now why would he need to explain everything to them? If he indeed did explain everything to them, where does that leave aChristian? Because let's be honest, you and I, we got the parable versions, not the explained versions.
I think you are a bit dishonest, if only with yourself, I think your entire belief system is based on a little ego self stroking. Hey, if you really are so spiritually advanced that you can make perfect logic out of perfectly illogical words, bring waters of truth out of unsubstantiated myths, then go ahead and pat yourself on the back. You truly are on a different spiritual plane than the common man.
I guess whether or not that is a higher plane to be on will be proven if you indeed turn out to have the golden ticket.
: Now why would he need to explain everything to them?
"On the last and greatest day of the Feast, Jesus stood and said in a loud voice, ...Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him.' By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified." (John 7:37-39)
"All this I have spoken while still with you. ... But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you." (John 14:25,26)
: If he indeed did explain everything to them, where does that leave a Christian?
"As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things." (1 John 2:27 )
Been there, heard that
Why isn't God more responsible in punishing people for not believing
whatever doctrines somebody claims is the "truth"?
Because they are stupid or lazy or unspiritual, blah, blah, blah.
No objective logic here: just accept the metaphors, symbolism,
ambiguity, etc. and bet your life on it.
The only personal God worth believing in would communicate directly
with each human, telling them what is personally necessary.
It is the ultimate hypocrisy to counsel people to honestly
confront each other discussing personal disputes plainly,
while the Creator avoids the same.
metatron
The answer to ambiguity apparently is more of the same, as
shown by the scriptures quoted.
metatron
: The only personal God worth believing in would communicate directly with each human, telling them what is personally necessary.
"The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth." (John 1:14)
True to form
More metaphorical nonsense - more ambiguity quoted to justify
ambiguity. No "Word" or book should even be needed in a just
universe where a personal creator exists.
metatron
Oh my god!
a, you didn't type in that missive while here in the forum did you? Surely, you have been hiding that somewhere on your hard disk just waiting to pull it out.
I'm amused because I use to do just the same. You think you have to be so full of understanding and that you can, by logic, convince the infidels of the truth found in the word of god.
It really doesn't work. You can make the Bible be whatever you want it to be. And, you cannot prove to anyone anything of which they have not already convinced themselves. I know, it sounds non-sensical. But all of us tend to just believe what makes sense to us. I guess, for now, you believe that God has preserved a written "word" and treat it as though God himslef is speaking, even if in riddles. Most of us who doubt you have been where you are.
Amused,
Sean
: The only personal God worth believing in would communicate directly
with each human, telling them what is personally necessary.
Let me see if I understand you correctly. You are saying that even if Jesus was who the Bible says he was, and even if the Bible was truly inspired by God, it would make little difference to you. Because you feel that even if the God who created our universe did send His only begotten Son to us, and even if He did send His own thoughts to us by inspiring the writings of some 40 men over a period of some 1,600 years, it was not a good enough form of communication. For you feel that any God worthy of worship would have to personally appear before each and every human being who has ever lived and would have to then personally reveal His complete will to each of us.
That is an interesting opinion. However, the Bible tells us that none of us is worthy to personally appear before the God who created our universe, at least not without Jesus Christ by our side taking the blame for all of our unrighteousness. Myself, I am overwhelmed by the great love, generosity and humility of a God who was not only willing to communicate with us in written form, but was also willing to personally reveal Himself to us at one point in history in the person of His only begotten Son. (John 14:9)
Seaken,
You wrote: You think you have to be so full of understanding and that you can, by logic, convince the infidels of the truth found in the word of god.
Nope. I just thought some here might be interested in knowing that there is another way of understanding Paul's writings than the sexist way presented by the one who started this thread. I found that viewpoint quite interesting when I first read it in a few Bible commentaries and I thought some others here, who have not yet read such commentaries, may find it interesting also.
