Originally posted by vistesdThe Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.
[b]I could never speak for Tao the way some people speak in Gods stead...
Or even to speak about Tao in the same way. When I try, the words end up a tangle—though maybe that at least points to the inescapable entanglement...
“The musician does not need to have ‘faith’ that there is a melody, nor does he have to accept the existence of the m ...[text shortened]... ry to separate the water from the flow,
you end up with stagnation, and a crop of mosquitoes...[/b]
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
The nameless is the beginning of heaven and Earth.
The named is the mother of the ten thousand things.
Ever desireless, one can see the mystery.
Ever desiring, one sees the manifestations.
These two spring from the same source but differ in name; this appears as darkness.
Darkness within darkness.
The gate to all mystery.
Lao Ze
If anyone asks me about Tao, i simply say. . . Tao is.
Originally posted by jaywillWe have a winner!
Yep. You're right there. A big Copy Cat. Whatever I say about Jesus, sure, you're right there with your copy cat.
Whatever Christ is John Lennon is sure to be right there like the Big Copy Cat.
Koo Koo Ka Jub !
Still it took you three pages to recognize that your supernatural claims can be parodied with any other supernatural claim. You'll have to bone up or Muffy will eat you alive.
2 edits
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundObviously the first line of my message went over your head.
I said "you carry your own water", that was my answer to your question.
How many evils have you managed to deal with because some invisible entity has abracadabra'd them to the back of your mind? ...maybe if people lived up to the fact that they have done bad things, rather than considering themselves to have a clean sheet all the time, the world would be a better place.[/b]
Sorry if I didn't get your meaning. I'll try to read your posts more carefully.
I do not believe that just because you tell someone you did a bad thing, that it goes away.
I think with anyone else that might be the case. But there is an ultimate Governor. There is an ultimate and last Judge to whom we are accountable. Now He says that He is able to remove our sins from us as far as the east is from the west. That is an infinite distance.
The ultimate Judge is unique in that He can cause unrighteousness to be atoned for. Behind Him, above Him, beyond Him there is no one and can be no one else to whom we are responsible.
This authority of God to justify goes along with the territory of being the ultimate Governor of the universe and the very round of being. If He could not absolve us or would not absolve us then we would be in very deep trouble.
If you've done bad you've done bad. . .live with it.
In a sense there are consequences to sins even after one has been forgiven. This is true.
King David stole a man's wife, Bethsheba, and arranged to have her husband murdered. He was forgiven by God upon his repentence. But, yes, he did have to live with a scar and a consequence of his sin.
To a degree we often do have to live with the damage or consequence of our sins. I agree with you if that is what you mean.
This idea that you can somehow magically erase the evils of men by devine worship of forgiveness is, to me, extremely strange.
I think I'll repeat that God has not overlooked our sins. He has judged them on the cross of Christ. Justice has been imputed. There is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood. This way has been established by the One Who has the authority to establish it. He will forgive us. But it will be in a way which establishes His standard and upholds His righteous procedure.
From the standpoint of the repentent sinner it is "free" forgiveness. But from God's angle there is no such thing as free forgiveness. He will forgive us in a way which does not involve Himself in violating His own holiness, His own righteousness, and His own glory. He will forgive us at the cost of the Son of God carrying our penalty which is too heavy for us.
If God loves in a sloppy way He is not righteous. If He only cares to judge us He has no love for us. The predicament of God is to forgive us out of His love for us, yet in a way that does not cause Him to violate His own eternal righteousness.
God upholds His great love for man and yet also maintains His eternal righteousness at the cross of Jesus. He forgives yet He does not do so in a way that anyone could accuse Him of being sloppy and loose morally.
So there is no abracadabra magic. But the One with authority to establish a procedure for our redemption has established it. He has the authority to create the universe out of nothing. And He has the authority to justify man of his sins.
He upholds His great love for us and He upholds His righteous way. God will never give up His righteousness for anything. He will save us. but He must do so in a way which comes up to the standard of His eternal righteous nature.
Originally posted by telerionNow you should realize that John Lennon must have been confused about a number of things. And he is to be felt sorry for.
We have a winner!
Still it took you three pages to recognize that your supernatural claims can be parodied with any other supernatural claim. You'll have to bone up or Muffy will eat you alive.
Why would he want to publish to the whole world photos of he and his wife in the most private and intimate moments of their marriage? Was he trying to turn us into animals again with no sense of modesty?
Lennon was to be pittied. He had the ears and eyes of much of the world, at least the young generation. Why would he waste it on stripping his sense of modesty from his wife in public? Not to mention his own modesty.
It was not done to him. He did it to himself. What purpose did it serve if you understand Lennon's mind? Don't you think it would be vulgar for you to expose your privacy of your marriage in such a meaningless way?
This man needed help. He needed Jesus Christ. We all need Jesus Christ the Savior.
Originally posted by jaywillNo, no, no—I think you missed my points:
Oh. Christians aren't suppose to be able to laugh? Sorry.
I still think I am a big shot? Yes. I am more egotistical than you could ever imagine. That is why I need Jesus so very much. You see there is hope in Christ. There is hope to be sober minded and have a clear assessment about one's self.
I am just a sinner saved by grace. I am learning to li ...[text shortened]... e often ends in clergyman suffering from some form of burn out which sends them searching.
Oh. Christians aren't suppose to be able to laugh? Sorry.
Laughter’s good. Maybe I should’ve just said, “I’m glad I made you laugh.” No hidden innuendo or sarcasm there. (Besides, that post was in response to huck’s. I hope he laughed too.)
I still think I am a big shot?...egotistical...
Now, I may be misreading you here—or you may have misread me. I didn’t mean you were particularly “egotistical,” or anything like that; it was not offered as a put-down. My bad, maybe, for trying a straight “zen” shot. (The reason I say I may be misreading you is that I might have also used the phrase “big shot” in a zen sense too, and you might be just giving it back to me... Difficult sometimes to sort these things out on here: the rigidity of the written word and all that...)
Let me try again—
We all go through “somebodiness training” as we grow and develop. We add our own stuff to make that somebody, and put away some of the stuff we have learned as we go along. Nevertheless, we may start to think that somebody is real, rather than artifactual. We use words like Self and Soul, and believe that that “somebody self” is (or at least has elements that are) substantial and not transient; and—in that sense—it is an illusion. There is a whole cultural, societal, philosophical and religious edifice that supports that idea of a real, substantial somebody-self.
To say that anyone is “nobody” or “nothing” might also be misconstrued as a judgmental, put-down statement. So I say something like: “There is no original ‘somebody’ there.” If you say that you think there is, then I say: “Don’t think, don’t infer—look.”
Still, the whole trouble with words, though...
_________________________________
Jay, we may disagree and even disagree strongly. We may just have to declare a friendly impasse. But trust me on this: If I am attacking you personally, you will know it. There will be no doubt. If I am being sarcastic, I will probably say so to remove doubt.
Be well.
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundYep.
The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
The nameless is the beginning of heaven and Earth.
The named is the mother of the ten thousand things.
Ever desireless, one can see the mystery.
Ever desiring, one sees the manifestations.
These two spring from the same source but differ ...[text shortened]... The gate to all mystery.
Lao Ze
If anyone asks me about Tao, i simply say. . . Tao is.
One translation I saw of that first line is: “Tao that can be ‘taoed’ is not the real Tao.”
Tao is: perhaps “Tao” itself should be taken more as a verb than as a noun...
But I talk too much. Trying to use words like fingers pointing to the moon...
Originally posted by jaywilljaywill,
I think I know where I can obtain faith. I know where to get it. The word of God produces the believing ability in me in some measure. The Bible is like radiation to me. You can agree or disagree with uranium. Regardless you will get the radiation infused into you.
This is something like my experience with the Bible. When I read it with my spirit and with a willingness to be changed by God, faith is just transfused into me.
Referring to the very first post of this thread, my interpretation was that you think faith is a necessary condition for revelational experience. Now it seems you are saying that faith is initially acquired through revelational experience. Have I misinterpreted you, or is your stance really that incoherent?
Originally posted by jaywillYou asked me a question , i answered it.
[b]Obviously the first line of my message went over your head.
Sorry if I didn't get your meaning. I'll try to read your posts more carefully.
I do not believe that just because you tell someone you did a bad thing, that it goes away.
I think with anyone else that might be the case. But there is an ultimate Governor. There is an u ...[text shortened]... He must do so in a way which comes up to the standard of His eternal righteous nature.[/b]
The preaching thing.....It's quirky, and i guess its what i should've expected from a Christian that questions my beliefs. If your intentions were to compare, maybe i just read you wrong, my bad.
If theres people that believe something different from you, then it was your Gods will that it be that way. You should accept, and rejoice that your God saw fit to create things this way 🙂
Originally posted by jaywillWho are you to question John Lennon?
Now you should realize that John Lennon must have been confused about a number of things. And he is to be felt sorry for.
Why would he want to publish to the whole world photos of he and his wife in the most private and intimate moments of their marriage? Was he trying to turn us into animals again with no sense of modesty?
Lennon was to be pittied. ...[text shortened]... ss way?
This man needed help. He needed Jesus Christ. We all need Jesus Christ the Savior.
John Lennon had his reasons, and they were far beyond you to understand. He certainly didn't need your mental idol.
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundYou asked me a question , i answered it.
Thanks. I may ask you another question or two.
The preaching thing.....It's quirky, and i guess its what i should've expected from a Christian that questions my beliefs. If your intentions were to compare, maybe i just read you wrong, my bad.
Now, now I could just as easily say that you sound "preachy" to me.
I don't mine your preaching on a forum like this. You can ask questions and debate is you wish. Please don't come off like I have a corner on the preaching.
Clarifying the facts as you understand them can always be labelled as "preaching" by others. Does preaching make that which is preached necessarily untrue?
If theres people that believe something different from you, then it was your Gods will that it be that way. You should accept, and rejoice that your God saw fit to create things this way 🙂
I am not bothered that others believe differently. I do accept it. Doesn't mean that I can't clarify my position to others who may be reading along.
Originally posted by jaywillI've heard that, of all of the things published by Playboy magazine,
Oh. Christians aren't suppose to be able to laugh? Sorry.
the picture that has elicited the most angry letters is the famous
portrait of 'Laughing Jesus.'
Apparently, the idea that Jesus would laugh was offensive to a
great number of 'Christians' in the 60s.
So, don't be too surprised.
Nemesio
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillThere once was a fairy called nuff......fairy nuff 🙂
[b]You asked me a question , i answered it.
Thanks. I may ask you another question or two.
The preaching thing.....It's quirky, and i guess its what i should've expected from a Christian that questions my beliefs. If your intentions were to compare, maybe i just read you wrong, my bad.
Now, now I could just as easily say that you it. Doesn't mean that I can't clarify my position to others who may be reading along.[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioFor some reason I don't go to Playboy magazine to get my theology.
I've heard that, of all of the things published by Playboy magazine,
the picture that has elicited the most angry letters is the famous
portrait of 'Laughing Jesus.'
Apparently, the idea that Jesus would laugh was offensive to a
great number of 'Christians' in the 60s.
So, don't be too surprised.
Nemesio