[geocentrism] Re: A tool of Satan
- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: 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.....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?
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 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.....Paul was specificaly talking about the
L&P.....ummmmm....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.........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.
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, ...
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:
