Naomi25
Well-Known Member
- Aug 10, 2016
- 3,199
- 1,802
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- Australia
As is the case so often with you, the conversation has led to circles within circles. The intent was never to place limitations, but to describe my field of experience, which you wanted me to define, but that, apparently, placed limitations within, or without, that definition. No. Not my intent, not needed in my opinion."Protestant ecclesia" was the limitation, why only them iow (i think is what i had in mind then anyway)
If you have not have bad experiences, yet call 'most' of the forefathers and the teachings/traditions we regard from them "wolves", don't you think that is at best disingenuous and at least false testimony?ah, none that i can recall. Funny, i get that a lot, apparently i am giving that impression? I cant think of a denomination that i did not learn some valuable concept at tbh. So, loved them all, wouldnt go back to any of them, except to visit maybe, chiefly bc they were all cult of sol, all in homo genized agreement on the one thing that is not true, imo
And, once again, you accuse orthodox Christianity of being pagan without anything but your say so as proof.
Oh yes, That's right! I am such a 'sweet' (read stupid) naive person. I absolutely regard the bible as god incarnate. I bow before it at night, and sing songs to it, and ask it to give me great wealth!man, youre such a sweet heart to still be speaking in satans dialectic imo...
In the beginining was the Bible, and the Bible was with God, and the Bible was God, Naomi
and black will become white in Scripture when you learn the naive dialectic, eat the hidden manna, stop eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge, stop saying you know, become like a little child, however you want to put it, imo.
Right.
But you know what I find equally ridiculous bbyrd? The notion that 'god' can be 'whispering in the spirit' to thousands of different people all at the same time, all absolutely contrary things, and we're supposed to just nod like lemmings and believe that that is rational. But hey...for someone like you who believe truth is just a puff of fluff that is totally subjective and meaningless, I suppose rationality is overrated, isn't it?
But whatever. As long as people like you mock the bible and where it came from and therefore the weight behind it's words, it allows you to disregard what it says or twist its words. As we have daily proof. The penalty of that will not be upon me. So mock away.
Now...I know you're smart enough to get the distinction between The Word (capitals)...as in John 1:1, and then, the written word. Yeah? Christ is the active, living Word.So i would at least reflect on the possibility that the Bible is not Word, mainly so that a better def of Word might manifest when you seek it--bc if you already "know" what Word is you by def are not seeking a better def right--and expect the naive dialect to change virtually every understanding of every passage that you currently have. Imo you owe it to yourself to prove from Scripture that Bible is Word, and when you cant, to face the implications, or, if you can, then post it and lets see
The bible is God's letter to us.
Words can have 2 outcomes. One can be active, powerful, authoritative. Like, for example, the decree of a King. When he "speaks" in his official 'voice', people must act, things must get done as the King has demanded. With Christ, it is like this. God speaks, Christ is that action, he is the Word in action, in power.
Words can also just be about information, about recording, about communication. Letters, history, stories, poems. The bible holds all of these. From God, to us.
And since they are from God to us, that makes them important, wouldn't you say? Or don't you think what God wants to tell us about history is important? What he wants to write to us, his wisdom to us? Only a fool would believe so.
Except, you call everything I list as a 'service', which includes singing, worship, teaching and prayer, as a "love feast"...so once again you are doing your circles within circles. Which makes this conversation what...? Pointless?ah, in my understanding a "service" is...um what the "Good" (Why do you call Me good?) Samaritan did for the guy in the ditch (who is surely a "saved" person who believes that some "others" are going to hell {if you dig a ditch for others...} while they goto heaven, essentially), so both "worship" and "service" are not pertinent, but "love feast" should be.
Except the issues that you yourself have bought up, right? The ones you think 'normal' church services are missing, right? Like care of the orphans and widows? How about those?But would i want to congregate to discuss social issues? Um, doesnt strike me as what would be done at "love feasts," but im just realizing that i havent really formulated a very good def of that yet, esp for back then (why dont you eat at home?), so i would guess "no" but idk.
"Discussing social issues" is bugging me...it is absent i guess is why lol, yeh. hmm. What issues? There are issues? Ha but you just are not going to like any of my responses after you name some "issues" either...bc there arent any issues, Naomi. Ha i know that sounds weird but there just arent. Plenty of perceived issues i guess
Your inconsistencies are as big as a barn.
Like Esau. The one whom God hated? You're saying that the bible teaches that those under the blood of Christ...those under grace and love, are the same as the one God 'hated'?ppl who plead the blood or believe that Jesus died for their sins are Esau
You're just one bizarre little cookie, aren't you?