[geocentrism] Re: A tool of Satan

Ok me in ..ummmm...musturd


----- Original Message ----
From: Neville Jones <njones@xxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 3:26:54 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: A tool of Satan


 What outlandish colour have we not used yet? Let's have ... turquoise




-----Original Message-----
From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 14:44:43 -0700 (PDT)
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: A tool of Satan


OK...Im narrowing it down now.....we should be able to use clean paper after 
this one..i think........I'm in orenge now.... 
OK.......it does not have to be but it was... Well, there's not much I can say 
to this assertion, other than it is an assertion by you to support your 
position! ....no that is not my assertion that is the texts asserion the burden 
of proof is on you to prove the text is in error not merrly assert it is in 
error...... You already agreed that "it did not have to be," so I have proven 
to your satisfaction, or at least your agreement, that the text does not assert 
whatever it was we were talking about (!!) with no room for doubt. Hence, your 
assertion is still your assertion.

 
1. what the text states about itself is nto the issue nor did  make an 
assertion about the valdiity of the text you did....Im only showing you that 
appraoch is less logical then accepting all the text...
2. That validity of the text whcih you question and i ask based on what?...not 
any assertions of allen is what is in question..

therfore:  your conclusion is False because the burden of proof of whatever we 
were talking about is on you to show that the text is false the text and your 
asertion as to the validity of the text not allen is in question..

That is if i even remember corectly what that was all about........

  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. ...how do you know that? many religions belive they do... and beside 
how or why does that mean they are less importaint to God maybe they ahave 
somthing else entirly ...God made them too......... are we less coz we only 
have 2 leggs rather then 8?...do insects have spirits? how do you 
know......ummmm others have strong feelings about that....The animals do. What 
is an animal to God? A creature that God has entrusted to us to look after, 
care for and discipline. and plants are not?...how do you know that? How do you 
discipline a plant? what has disipline got to do with life worthyness or 
determine if it has a spirit or not....? Because, as I pointed out, there is a 
difference between plants and animals and
 discipline (i.e., the need for) is one aspect of that. "A creature that God 
has entrusted to us to look after, care for and discipline."  You still dont 
show us how that proves that God must view animals the same as humans..or that 
He views plants with any less value....or where insects stand in the whold 
sceme of things not to mention coral ......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? plants and animals 
are for food Animals "are for food"? I thought that we were instructed in the 
beginning that vegetation was for food?  The last explicit instruction for what 
to eat i know of, in my bible was to "rise kill and eat"................. An 
admonition of the Devil if ever I heard one. Besides, are you saying that the 
original instruction has now been removed? 

No im saying that i accept all not just some of the scriptures and there is a 
place in time for animal consumption as brought out in that text.....Further 
you have yest to demonstrate that the parts of the text you look at are the 
only valid text and the ones that i accept are not. YOu must do that before you 
can even begin to attempt to argue that God only wants vegitarians...

You take part of the text to make your case then use your case to "prove" that 
the other bits of text are invalid....your whole approach is arbirtray not 
objective....If you cannot accept the only source text you have for the nature 
of God and the mission/purpose of Christ then what in the world makes you 
belive there ever was a Jesus Christ  ........??????


and for my comfort.....Childeren are for raising to do likewise and be 
Godly...................
 
 
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? 
 because it does not conform to  the L&P via Paul's warning...not to think 
beyond what is written But it was written .....Paul IT surly was written just 
like alot of other religious books today............written  some 100+years 
after the gosple of Christ had already
 been delivered. and only rediscovered in 1945...( igeuss there goes any 
notions of preservation of the gosple that God may or may not have 
had..ummm.....and it is certainly is not consistent with the L&P wich we know 
Paul was specifiicaly addressing particularly if you hold that the rest of the 
bible was only put together at Nicea............... The NT has been doctored to 
agree with the L&P. 
"doctored"..ummmm It was written and put together to agree with the L&P for 
sure.... But, then that is why i accept it... ???...You still dont give any 
valid reason for why the L&P are not true excpet "you feel". You took a verse 
you pick out above the others then force or reject any other verse to fit it 
"context be damed"......over all the others....why that verse?  How is that 
method more objective then taking the whole in context and understaning it as a 
whole rather then in bits and peices that have no way of being validated 
external of someones head?

was specificaly talking about the L&P.....ummmmm.. This character string seems 
to be the flavour of the month judging by how often you employ it. It canont be 
argued that Paul was not speaking about the L&P  particularly if you hold that 
the rest of the bible was only put together at Nicea..thats how and why any of 
the other gosples were eleminated long before nicea....???.....and although 
there were some Christains then who accepted Thomas there are Christians today 
who accept written false teachings from false teachers...the bible even warns 
of it... Yes, but the Bible also claims to be "God-breathed," but that does not 
of itself mean that it is. ..and It dose not mean that it is not.......the fact 
that the bible calims insperation of God and to accept that based on the 
tesomony of the witness What do you mean by the testimony of the witness? 
There is a difference between "The word of God" and a record/ testimony to the 
word of God......Paul said we are his witnesses....But the word of God is not 
ink and paper..........I'm stopping here (and placing this in red), since I 
would like to concentrate on this in our future discussions.
Yes, good lets focus on this.....im sure to raise eyebrows here.....
Neville.
is somehow more illogical then just making it all up yourself ??? ....what is 
the differnece? NONE! same then as it is now but you can still know now the 
same way they did then. But the way you know is not by picking and choosing 
words and phrases but assembeling the whole thing together....just as with a 
puzzel the correct solution is intrinsic to the puzzle not how many other 
puzzels you try to mix it up with....
 
Nevile your doctrine is based on the scriptures you choose to accept and the 
scriptures you choose to accept are determined by your doctrine.....think about 
it....there is no way to validate your postion logicaly. I started off 
believing that all the canonical writings were the true word of God. I then 
found that some were not. Your "i found that some were not" methodology is what 
is in question..you have explained your methodology but as of yet demonstrated 
no way of validating it as more logical or more reasonable then the alternitive 
in fact it is less so.......  Does that mean that I throw out the baby with the 
bathwater? No. In fact, it was the recollection of a particular scripture that 
enlightened me to this.
Which only begs the question how do you know that one was not the one thrown in 
by the devil...... or maybe you just dont know how it fits with the others 
...so you take the third option wich can only come from inside your head and 
cannot be validated or supported in any other way.......you interpret that 
verse based on how you "see it" the from that either accept or reject 
others......well i did the same thing...i just found they make perfect sense 
together.......

 
I have missed one or two comments, because this thread is starting to get too 
confusing. Perhaps you could pick a point to extract and we can then start with 
a clean piece of paper?


Neville.



----- Original Message ----
From: Neville Jones <njones@xxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 2:07:26 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: A tool of Satan



This time in red:



-----Original Message-----
From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 18:50:01 -0700 (PDT)


OK this blue 
----- Original Message ----- 
From: Neville Jones 
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 8:50 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: A tool of Satan


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 Satan


OK .........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? 
because 1. if you already know somthing you cant go learn it ....2.The same 
ones Jesus was speaking to there (Jewish leaders) were the same ones who 
accused him of having a demon. 3. The jewish leaders/ establishment rejected 
Christ ...many whores and publicans came
 repented and accepted Christ that is why they go in the status quo would 
not........  ........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'. . OK.......it does not have to be but it was... Well, 
there's not much I can say to this assertion, other than it is an assertion by 
you to support your position! ....no that is not my assertion that is the texts 
asserion the burden of proof is on you to prove the text is in error not merrly 
assert it is in error......if God made that determination then what are you 
basing your assertion on that he did not do it that way... we only have the 
bible for source material.......further, you were the one who quoted Jesus "God 
is spirit and must be worshiped in spirit and in truth"....so where did you 
learn that teaching from..?......JESUS.. not just anyone.. and he claimed to be 
Son of God???...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.  I'm only using Jesus as the 
son of God and God in the flesh...how that defines the ultimate nature of God  
or where and how is the dividing line between
 Christ and the Father is beyond the scope of this or my full 
understanding.......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."  why? if it is moraly reprehsible  and unacceptable for a man to 
sacrifice himself for sins becuse of murder or unworthyness? .....Then why 
would it not make perfect  sense if God did it for us? That way no moral 
delima....coz God determins morales and worthyness.....If the king chops his 
arm off because im a theif who is going to tell him that is wrong..?..based on 
what? ..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. ...how do you 
know that? many religions belive they do... and beside how or why does that 
mean they are less importaint to God maybe they ahave somthing else entirly 
...God made them too......... are we less coz we only have 2 leggs rather then 
8?...do insects have spirits? how do you know......ummmm others have strong 
feelings about that....The animals do. What is an animal to God? A creature 
that God has entrusted to us to look after, care for and discipline. and plants 
are not?...how do you know that? How do you discipline a plant? what has 
disipline got to do with life worthyness
 or determine if it has a spirit or not....?......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? plants and 
animals are for food Animals "are for food"? I thought that we were instructed 
in the beginning that vegetation was for food?  Thelast explicit instruction 
for what to eat i know of, in my bible was to "rise kill and 
eat".................and for my comfort.....Childeren are for raising to do 
likewise and be Godly..........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? 
 because it does not conform to  the L&P via Paul's warning...not to think 
beyond what is written But it was written .....Paul IT surly was written just 
like alot of other religious books today............written  some 100+years 
after the gosple of Christ had already
 been delivered. and only rediscovered in 1945...( igeuss there goes any 
notions of preservation of the gosple that God may or may not have 
had..ummm.....and it is certainly is not consistent with the L&P wich we know 
Paul was specifiicaly addressing particularly if you hold that the rest of the 
bible was only put together at Nicea............... was specificaly talking 
about the L&P.....ummmmm.. This character string seems to be the flavour of the 
month judging by how often you employ it. It canont be argued that Paul was not 
speaking about the L&P  particularly if you hold that the rest of the bible was 
only put together at Nicea..thats how and why any of the other gosples were 
eleminated long before nicea....???.....and although there were some Christains 
then who accepted Thomas there are Christians today who accept written false 
teachings from false teachers...the bible even warns of it... Yes, but the 
Bible also claims to be "God-breathed," but
 that does not of itself mean that it is. ..and It dose not mean that it is 
not.......the fact that the bible calims insperation of God and to accept that 
based on the tesomony of the witness is somehow more illogical then just making 
it all up yourself ??? ....what is the differnece? NONE! same then as it is now 
but you can still know now the same way they did then. But the way you know is 
not by picking and choosing words and phrases but assembeling the whole thing 
together....just as with a puzzel the correct solution is intrinsic to the 
puzzle not how many other puzzels you try to mix it up with.....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. but you are denying the very thing you are using as your 
jsutifycation...Nevile your doctrine is based on the scriptures you choose to 
accept and the scriptures you choose to accept are determined by your 
doctrine.....think about it....there is no way to validate your postion 
logicaly. I started off believing that all the canonical writings were the true 
word of God. I then found that some were not. Your "i found that some were not" 
methodology is what is in question..you have explained your methodology but as 
of yet demonstrated no way of validating it as more logical or more reasonable 
then the alternitive in fact it is less so.......  Does that mean that I throw 
out the baby with the bathwater? No. In fact, it was the recollection of a 
particular scripture that enlightened me to this.
Which only begs the question how do you know that one was not the one thrown in 
by the devill or maybe you just dont know how it fits with the others ...so you 
take the third option wich can only come from inside your head and cannot be 
validated or supported in any other way.......you interpret that verse based on 
how you "see it" the from that either accept or reject others......well i did 
the same thing...i just found they make perfect sense together.......
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. Christanity started with Christ who created the 
world 6000BC when God so predetermined it........so how does stories from 900 
BC that sound similar to "christanity" prove anything except that the stories 
of Virgin birth and resurection from the dead did not suddenly appear in 900 
bc....UM...more like from the begining of time.............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, ...

I have missed one or two comments, because this thread is starting to get too 
confusing. Perhaps you could pick a point to extract and we can then start with 
a clean piece of paper?


Neville.



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.518 / Virus Database: 269.21.7/1325 - Release Date: 11/03/2008 
1:41 PM






 
Free 3D Earth Screensaver
Watch the Earth right on your desktop! Check it out at www.inbox.com/earth





 
Receive Notifications of Incoming Messages
Easily monitor multiple email accounts & access them with a click. Visit 
www.inbox.com/notifier and check it out!

Other related posts: