 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
What exactly does the word divine mean?
When I hear words written, or spoken, by you or Frank, I think I can understand what you or Frank means, and if I can't, then I can ask.
When you define the meanings of words for Frank, then I have a problem with taking your version of what Frank says as an authority over what Frank says.
This is basically my problem with literal meaning of words in any form whatsoever. The meaning requires an aware being reading the words.
Which aware being has the authority to officially determine the meaning of words?
Divine means whatever any aware being can become aware of the meaning of that word within the power of that being in time and place.
If you ask me, then I can say that the word divine means a matter of fact.
Divine means perfect perception of actual reality.
Divine means that having the power of perfect perception of actual reality is a power that gains access to all other power if access to all other power is possible in actual reality.
Since I do not have access to perfect perception of actual reality, in my view, I am not divine.
I think that Frank is saying that our power is only limited by our present condition and it is our gift from God to be as powerful as God in due time, assuming that is what we want, and assuming we are willing to do what is necessary to reach for that goal.
I know, for a fact, that I have a lot of trouble speaking for other people, whereby my ideas of what other people think are more often wrong, more often full of error, and less often less full of error, and I base that estimate of my power to know what other people think on actual trial and error, and I don't base that estimate of my power to know what other people think on baseless assumption.
What contentions exist between Jesus and the rest of the Bible?
I plan on attending talks with Frank each Wednesday. If the above question is worth asking, then it is worth asking Frank, since my personal contentions with what I consider to be contradictions in The Bible are already on the table.
Example:
The concept of someone other than me being punished for my wrong doing is counter to my own understanding of reality.
If there are contradictions between what Jesus says and what someone else says in the King James version of The Bible, to be specific, then Frank may be able to point those out, since it is my idea (perhaps wrong) that Frank knows of these things.
Please understand my viewpoint here on this point of actual words in The King James version of The Bible being what they are, where those words exist on their own, and then, on the other hand, there can be an observer who observes those words, you can observe those words, I can observe those words, and Frank can observe those words.
If the words here contradict the words there, then that happens with, or without, someone observing the contradiction.
An example would be an example.
I don't have one.
Who knows of one?
I don't.
I can imagine that there is a possible contradiction, but without having the actual words printed in an actual King James version of The Bible, in front of me, my imagination constitutes a contention.
You wrote:
What contentions exist between Jesus and the rest of the Bible?
I don't know how to answer that question. Jesus is not available for questioning, not to me.
Is there a contradiction written into the King James version of The Bible whereby words attributed to Jesus say something to the effective of "go left" and another person is attributed as having said "go right," and that would be an example of a contradiction written, in print, into a version of The Bible, such as a copy of The King James version of The Bible.
I am working at being specific, so as to zero in on something specific, so as not to fall victim to error associated with ambiguity, such as often is the case where there is miscommunication.
What contentions exist between Jesus and the rest of the Bible?
I may not understand the meaning of the word "contentions," so I work at clarifying the meaning of the question.
Frank is opposed to Christ and Frank is leading other people to be opposed to Christ. I realize my words are strong.
I think that your words could be backed up with actual inculpatory evidence proving the charge of guilt.
In the first place you do not share the same understanding of who is Jesus Christ. While your leader is your leader, a being of significance to you, known to you, as you can accurately identify this being as being Jesus Christ, the same being is not the being known to Frank, as far as I can tell.
You are, in that respect, blaming Frank for opposing a being that Frank does not even know, perhaps, and the Jesus Christ that Frank does know, may be altogether a different being, so your accusations are in that way an error of misidentification.
Your claim of guilt concerns someone you know being someone that Frank opposes, when it appears obvious to me that Frank does not even know the someone that you know. If Frank does not know the someone you know, how can Frank oppose someone he does not even know?
As far as I know Frank has tried to find as much information as he can about a Jesus Christ, and his efforts have uncovered enough information for Frank to form an opinion about a person who he considers to be Jesus Christ.
Is the person Frank knows as Jesus Christ the same Jesus Christ as the person you know as Jesus Christ?
If it is not the same person, then your charge of guilt is an obvious case of misidentification.
If you do not oppose John Doe, and then you find out that Henry Smith does opposed John Doe, is it not important to see which John Doe is opposed by Henry Smith?
Also, it seems to me, your claim of opposition, charged against Frank, could be specific as to how Frank opposes a Jesus Christ, once it was found out, if it can be found out, which Jesus Christ Frank opposes.
Frank produces words contrary to the Word of God; therefore, Frank produces lies.
And we are all liars. So the concept of being specific here, is worth something to me, compared to the concept of being ambiguous.
Your belief in knowing precisely what is, and what is not, the Word of God is not a power shared by everyone, and therefore the fact that you are right, and those who don't share what you believe are wrong, does not make other people liars, they are merely wrong, and here again, as if this cannot ever be understood, there is the concept of willful deception compared to merely being wrong.
If you prefer not to acknowledge the difference between being willfully deceptive and merely being wrong, then I can accept that, so long as I know that is your preference.
What? Frank has invented a false religion that spits in the face of the Lord Jesus Christ and makes his sacrificial death which is the atonement for sin null and void.
Here are words that appear to be self-contradictory to me. I can be wrong. I can assure you that I am not being willfully deceptive, if you can acknowledge the difference, then please acknowledge the difference between being willfully deceptive and merely being wrong.
I may be wrong in my thinking that your words just quoted are self-contradictory. If the Jesus Christ you know did do as you say, then no one can nullify what Jesus Christ did, and no one can void what Jesus Christ did, but your words claim that someone "makes his sacrificial death which is the atonement for sin null and void."
If Frank believes in a religion that is not the religion that you believe then there are many possibilities that can explain the differences in your respective beliefs.
1. Your belief is absolutely true (not likely)
2. Frank's belief is absolute true (not likely)
3. Your belief is more accurate by a significant, demonstrable, measure compared to Frank's belief.
4. Frank's belief is more accurate by a significant, demonstrable, measure compared to your belief.
5. You are both sharing the same belief and you don't even know it.
6. I don't understand the meaning of belief.
7. Possibilities explaining the differences that are well beyond my understanding.
8. You are honest and truthful when you claim that Frank is a liar.
9. Frank is a liar
10. You are merely mistaken when you claim that Frank is a liar.
11. Frank is merely mistaken, he is not willfully lying.
Which leads me to ask, what do you mean by original sin? The first time I even heard that term was in 1993 when I was watching the Three Musketeers movie. The term "original sin" is not in the Bible. What does it mean?
I'm not sure what it means. If it is not in the Bible you believe in, then the actual words may be a reference to other words that are in the Bible you believe in.
My idea about the words offered by Frank, so far as I understand them, concerning the concept of original sin, is such that there is a criminal deception that is routinely perpetrated by criminals, whereby criminals blame everyone for the crimes that the criminals perpetrate.
So far as I understand the idea, therefore, the term original sin is equal to prejudice or collective punishment.
In other words the idea is to blame the victims for being victims.
A criminal mind, from what I gather, will rationalize the harm that the criminal does to the victims that the criminal targets. The criminal claims that the victims deserve to be harmed by the criminal.
That is what I think is meant by the term original sin. If such a thing as original sin does not exist in the Bible that you believe in, then Frank may be talking about some other Bible, some other words, or I may be misunderstanding what Franks means when Frank refers to original sin.
I can ask Frank questions on Wednesdays.
So far as I have exchanged words with Frank, my use of the concept of original sin is meant to be collective punishment/prejudice/criminal falsehoods covering up crimes upon the innocent.
I think maybe you were given a lie when you were 10 in regards to trying to get God and the Devil to quit fighting. God does not wrestle with evil. We do.
Here we go again, it seems to me, moving back to the point where I feel as if I have to assure you that I do not think that I am the God that you believe in. It is not within my POWER to mediate the struggle between all good and all evil, so sure, at the age of 10, my imagination was creating (or not creating if I am incapable of creating anything) error in perspective.
At the age of 10 I could have understood the true meaning of the words in The Bible as it was being taught to me by Sunday School teachers. I did not. At that time I had a problem with a guy dying for my sins. What was so horrible about me, at age 10, whereby a human being was tortured and murdered? Why do these people say that I have to eat the flesh of Jesus and drink the blood of Jesus?
Those problems persist in my thinking, to this day, so I may invent, or be possessed by, errors in perspective because I refuse to understand the truth about a human, or not really human, sacrifice, done for me.
My reaction then, and now, is no thanks. Please don't sacrifice Jesus for me, I don't deserve it. It was already done for you, it is said, and I say no, not for me, again, I do not deserve it, and I do not want it, and please don't ever sacrifice anyone else for me, please.
I listened to the trade of silver currency, or money, for use of land used then to bury a woman named Sarah. Apparently the person named Abraham felt that the person named Ephron had somehow earned the four hundred shekels of silver.
Frank offers information that traces the enforcement of exclusive use of the land to a few specific people, at the expense of many people.
I am finding the same routine played out over and over again so I see recognizable patterns of behavior that are now predictable acts perpetrated by criminals as if criminals are all reading from the same script, or as if criminals are all driven by the same force.
If you are dead set at convicting Frank as a willful liar, then that is how you will be, as you decide to be that way. If, on the other hand, it is acknowledge by you that Frank can be, as I am, merely prone to error in perspective, then that is your choice.
I am in no position to judge which belief, yours, or Frank's, or my own unspecific belief, is more accurate.
I do know that perception exists. I believe, specifically, that God is a word that can work to label the power that creates everything. Beyond that, my belief is unspecific unless I work to make it more specific. I can belief, or not believe, that Jesus Christ died for my sins, depending upon current thoughts, at any given time, but the concept is so foreign to my sense of morality that I'd prefer that no one is ever tortured and murdered on my account, ever.
Since my goal is to help, now that I am not holding down a real job, when I can help, and much of my help involves the Real Estate business, so it is interesting, and potentially beneficial, for me to learn the history of Trusts, Estates, and those who claim to own the land.
I trust that your children, and you, are in good hands.