Again in green, but bold green:
-----Original Message-----
From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:58:22 -0700 (PDT)
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: A tool of SatanOK .........ME TOO AGAIN IN BLUE...
----- Original Message ----
From: Neville Jones <njones@xxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 1:06:20 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: A tool of Satan
Allen, I have answered in green, but any further colouring would I think make this dialogue too confusing.
-----Original Message-----
From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 12:26:30 -0700 (PDT)
blue
----- Original Message ----
From: Neville Jones <njones@xxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 11:52:03 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: A tool of Satan
-----Original Message-----
From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 08:59:58 -0700 (PDT)I have told you this before, but I will tell you in all sincerity again, "go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice'." (1st canonical gospel, 9:13a, NIV.)
1. This still begs the question how do you know that God really desires mercy?
Three reasons: It says so in Hosea. 'Jesus' claims that it is true. My experience/spirit acknowledges it to be true.
Is mercy good only in your head or Godʼs as well and how can you be sure of that? Mabye the real God is a vengfull God and what you call good is evil......?
This is a possibility, true, but I have considered it deeply about 6-12 months ago and I have rejected it. (We are back to the good tree producing bad fruit that started this discussion.)
2. More importaintly, a closer examination of that verse both in Hosea as well as Mat 19:13.. shows us that Christ audience did not understand that verse either (of course they didn't, since otherwise he would not have needed to tell them to go away and figure it out - someone who is well is in no need of a doctor - is that not the immediately preceding verse?), so what makes you so sure you do?.... Did they sacrifice?...Yes! Did Christ condemn sacrifices....NO!... Are you claiming that Christ condoned sacrifice, or that he simply is not recorded as condemning sacrifice? Mark 1:44..Moses comanded sacrifice for the cleasing........ Inserted by the Jewish scribes to tie this teacher in with the concept of the Jews being the 'chosen ones'. We only have this source....and that is my point..i only use and know what it says........how and what do you base your assertion on? again back to my hitler annalogy people can "feel" like he was a good guy..and claim that all that bad stuff was just inserted by "the zionist"...? Of course it is posible that only you are right but you have no way of validating any of your belifes and thus far less reason to belive your error then i do even if in fact mine was the error....In fact your beilfe offers no reason at all why anyone else should go along with it.....What they like many do not understand, which is what Christ was showing them is just because there is a acceptable sacrifice for mistreating people does not mean it is acceptable to mistreat your brother for your own sake ( the one he had healed )and make up for it with a "required sacrifice". The sacrifice does not make up for the evil acts particular if the act is intentional. They were asking a question why do you eat with publicans and sinners? This was after Christ had just healed a man ...did they care about the man or the publicans&sinners...NO! they only cared about themselfs. All the sacrifice in the world will not make up for their apathy and contempt for the truth and work of God, which was Christ comming to heal the sick and bring the words of life to the lost ....what were they doing?.......Mat 23:13 you dont go in and you suffer not them that would........... Christ is pointing out that if they had the truth of God /mercy they would not condemn work of God a mercifully act as they did throughout His ministry and secondly seek to help/save not just condemn their brothers who they condemn falsely. No. What Christ was pointing out was that our Father not only desires mercy to be shown by us, but also does not desire sacrifice of living creatures. "only mercy" is not found in that verse........That is what you say about the verse, not what the verse says.. You are assuming a concept into the verse....the verse is about the application mercy not the condemation of sacrifice The verse has two distinct parts, tellings us firstly that God desires mercy and secondly that God does not desire sacrifice. only if you assume that is true first in the same way that i could apply that line of reasoing to my bosses intruction for me to go home if i dont feel good....Therfore whenever i dont feel good i should just go home even next week when everything happens all at once.......I dont think you have difficutly applying reasonalbe meaning to real people in context but you just refuse to do that with the teachings of Christ, as such you are invoking circular flaicies to justify your selective use of words and context that you use to develope your doctirne from then justify your choices of the words & context by appealing to your doctrine.....??.......... I can understand why the second part is a stumbling block to defending the OT, because the OT is riddled with sacrificial ritual and to say that this was not desired by our Father throws into question the entire OT. However, that is my position. ....that was jesus point when he said.....Matthew 21: 31 the publicans and harlots go into the kingdom before you do....They did not have mercy on anyone, they were only interested in being self-righteous (I don't think that whores are usually noted for being self-righteous - besides which, how do you KNOW that they did not display mercy?) if they had would Jesus be talking to them?..Christ came to heal the sick, they thought it was Christ who was sick and had a demon......what would be the point of point out a error that does not exist?. they must have been in error he told them to go learn it!?.... This is your deduction, and is a reasonable deduction, but my question was, how do you KNOW? he was not speaking to the whores there, he was speaking to the pharisees and leaders of the day....? "publicans and harlots" - a "harlot" is a whore ...............???Mat 21:23................. is spoken directly to and condemn any and everyone that did not conform to them including Christ and anyone the Christ helped. ....You see they were out to silence and eventually would kill the Christ. No, Allen. This brings us back to the sacrifice of a human being. Murder, okay, from their point of view, but you are claiming that our Father required this as to be a sacrifice from before the universe's creation. YES...but it was God in the flesh (Christr) God is a spirit and must be worshipped in spirit and in truth Yes, But he came in the flesh to teach you that fact, otherwise you would not know how you are to worship him This fact can be taught by someone who has simply been appointed, or annointed, to proclaim it. It does not have to be God 'in the flesh'. ..that is why they did not udnerstand coz they rejected the teaching of Christ..................again gets back the the whole point of God desirese mercy ( spiritual) not sacrifice ( fleshly carnal) but if you were not in the flesh you would know GOD because spiritaly we are dead untill Christ who is God in the flesh reconsiled man back to God in the spirit through the sufferings in his flesh.........who demanded that of himself (son) God is not bound by human morality, God sets the morality for man not the other way around. you have it backwards............that is in part Why God almighty had to do it himself cos it would not be acceptable for or from a man .....? God made that determination before the foundation of the world.... Christ offered himself he laid his life down no one took it from him..? JOHN 10:18 .."NO MAN take it from me"...how could they He is God..? I deny the trinity idea. ok i dissagree Fine, but we need to understand where the other is coming from. In which case, they would have had absolutely no way of not wanting Christ's blood. The very purpose of their existence would have been to bay for his blood. Every since Adam the men of God have been looking for the Christ. They did not understand the purpose of Christ or the sacrifice just like many do not today, as such God Who Sacrified himself used their own ignorance and wickedness to accomplish God's Righteous plan...ACTS 2:22-23 "By myself I can do nothing." The trinity idea enables you to juggle about with what God is to suit your position, rather than adjusting your position, even if it means throwing out the black book (or most of it), to suit what God is. ...I did not mention trinity...that is another discusion all together, but in any case....as you said God is a spirit, and maybe even "omnipresent" at that so, why can't God be in two places at one time...? I was objecting to your declaration that "God sacrificed himself" as part of his "plan." it There are still plenty of folk who need to as Christ said " Go lean what this means"....The verses are not condeming sacrifice without assuming that into the verse ( circular logic), Jesus is puting sacrifice in perspective. The verse is clear: Our Father does not desire sacrifice. This is simple English. Right he desires mercy not sacrifice........but he did not say that sacrifice was therofre not or ever nessisary.... sacrife is the penilty for the transgression............ do you desire to punish your childeren? No .....is it nessisary? Yes ..why you are making the rules up you can just say everything is ok and forget about the punishment right? But, Allen, what or who are you saying should be punished. If one of my children did something wrong, then they would be punished. I would not want or expect them to go out and punish an animal instead. Furthermore, I would not expect someone else to take the blame for what one of them did. This makes no sense. what difference does it make. If you use a belt or a switch on your child did you not kill or take responsibility for the cow or branch or if you prevent them from eating a twinky did you not affect ecconomy for the workers who make them why should they be punished too?....ridiculouls...NO! it is only a matter of SCALE not substance......What is an animal to God? what is a man to God? If God makes the animals and humans then just like the trees you plant in your garden or the grass around your house why should the grass or roses get cut and die for your good pleasure......COZ it is your grass and floweres.....!? Hmmm, I think that you and I are so far apart here that there is no point in debating these issues. You really seem happy to assign to God characteristics that are alien to my appreciation of God. The grass and the roses do not have spirits. The animals do. What is an animal to God? A creature that God has entrusted to us to look after, care for and discipline. What is a man (or woman) to God? If you need to ask that, then your spirit is lacking. What is your child to you? What is your pet cat to you? What is your pet dog to you? ...why not?..........man is made in the image of God....God did not desire the disobediance of man, but it is nessisary otherwise there could be no other "will" external of God ie...."contraly to the will of God" if everything was according to the will of God.....Romans 9:18-19... you cannot have a choice without 1. Options 2. the capcity to exercise those options.....Could man exercise his option to disobey...yes....could he opt to reconcile himself back to God....NO What?! Of course we can. HOW? and How do you know that is true?.... How does the prodigal son do it then? Does he get someone else to crawl back for him? Does he think that it is predestined that his father will take him back? Or does he humble himself, come to his senses, AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT HIMSELF? Only God could do that but God determined how and why it was to be done and by Whom.....HIMSELF cos Man could not do it himself......that is Why Christ Came...... You are supporting your contention by simply reiterating it. NO that is what is taugh by the apostles of Christ whom you reject but you reject them coz you built a doctrine on the things you rejected...but the things you rejected or justified in your eyes by your doctrine....circular falicy...... Er, no, I have not built a doctrine on the things I have rejected - I have just thrown them in the bin where they belong. But they would not hear his words then and I dont see that you are listining to them now..........
What if you are one of the ones who needs to figure out what it means, Allen? I apply context and use the only source of information we have about the issue and man to ascertain the issue and the man...where as you pick and choose meaning external of what context and information we have about the issue (from the only source we have) with nothing more then how "you feel".......Well now,..... what if i did that with the rest of human history...say Adolf Hitler...I could show he was a good man if i pick and choose only what i feel is true about him from the only sources we have about him.. Hitler did not drink alchool or smoke................"surely this man was the son of God" !?
Adolf Hitler was also a vegetarian, which is extremely important in my opinion. He developed the affordable family car, the world's first system of motorways, family care, improved worker's conditions, ... why are the plants lives less then the animals and humans...who made that determination...?..just rember before you answer that maybe "i feel" differently.....
Already answered above - i.e., the animals have spirits.
By using only the written Bible, as decided upon at the Council of Nicea, you are neglecting to use what the Creator gave to each and every one of us. the councile of Nicea did not determine the scriptures....The gospel of Christ has been preached everywhere all over the world by AD 70 ? The scriptures even point that out........ If anyone would bother to studdy the gnostic gosples and all the other text it would not be hard to see how and why only certain ones fit together and all the others dont fit even with each other........ The Council of Nicea most definitely did determine what was in the canon and what was not. Do you accept the Gospel of Thomas, for example? If not, then why not? And why does Christ so often say, "he who has eyes to see, ..." and "he who has ears to hear, ..."? How do you know that the Quran has to be discarded? Or the Hindu writings? Or the Buddhist writings? Coz you either accept or reject Christ ..but Christ said I AM THE WAY and NO MAN COME TO THE FATHER EXCEPT BY ME..... there is no other way to validate anyother thing that i or anyone might imagine that he said except by the source records.......
Is this not the whole point? My whole position? We have personal reasoning and experience. We have a dialogue with the Creator. We have eyes to see. We have ears to hear.
Was not Krishna "born of a virgin" in 900 B.C.? was he?........i always like to consider the source...what is it about the source(s) that makes me even want to put my faith in that?
Well, I'll answer my own question. No, he was not "born of a virgin." No one was ever "born of a virgin." But the point is that this story predates the Christian story by 900 years. And don't tell me that you are not aware of all the other stuff that likewise predates it: born on December 25, executed, in the grave for 3 days, resurrected, 12 deciples, ...Neville.
