[geocentrism] Re: A tool of Satan
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 09:25:54 +1000
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, ...
Sort of makes a great proof Neville, that mankind had the revelation of the
truth to come everywhere, but because of their corruption, they duplicated the
truth in their corruption.. or corrupt way. The Egyptians separated from Adam,
but having the prophecies duplicated in a corrupt way the true religion in
their Sun God..
We are doing that today with Christ.. Every possible type of corruption of the
truth.
Philip..
----- 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? 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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Other related posts:
