1 edit
Originally posted by Rajk999There's no issue between us. Only issue for us both is what does God think as well as to what extent have we both been taught the Word of God systematically by a pastor teacher from its original languages in order to gradually acquire the mind of Christ.
Well maybe there is a difference between what you call true love and brotherly love or charity. Charity manifests itself in compassion for the unfortunate around you.
As for your view of expecting a reward. There is nothing wrong with wanting a reward from God, but something is wrong with wanting reward of men. Christ himself wanted a reward from God for ...[text shortened]... eceive the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ.
(Colossians 3:22-24 KJV)
[/i]
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyWas that meant for me? Dont have a clue what you talking about.
There's no issue between us. Only issue for us both is what does God think as well as to what extent have we both been taught the Word of God systematically by a pastor teacher from its original languages in order to gradually acquire the mind of Christ.
“Doubt as sin. — Christianity has done its utmost to close the circle and declared even doubt to be sin. One is supposed to be cast into belief without reason, by a miracle, and from then on to swim in it as in the brightest and least ambiguous of elements: even a glance towards land, even the thought that one perhaps exists for something else as well as swimming, even the slightest impulse of our amphibious nature — is sin! And notice that all this means that the foundation of belief and all reflection on its origin is likewise excluded as sinful. What is wanted are blindness and intoxication and an eternal song over the waves in which reason has drowned.”
Friedrich Nietzsche, Daybreak: Thoughts on the Prejudices of Morality
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadPerhaps, but when you use phrases like "What you really mean is..." it seems you are presuming the writer didn't say what he meant. So I was wondering how you could have known Grampy Bobby wasn't saying what he meant to say?
No, it has not. He clearly did not understand what I posted, and almost certainly did not attempt to understand it.
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
So simple a child can understand.
Children are able to quickly understand things we adults often overlook or discount because they haven't yet developed fully formed and codified opinions, as well as a self defining philosophy of life. If a child says 'there is a bird in the tree over there' he isn't speculating, he is saying this because he did indeed see a bird in the tree.
We adults on the other hand have had more time to develop a tendency for turning speculation into fact based primarily on personal beliefs, preconceptions and prejudicial thinking.
Originally posted by lemon limeSo, as an adult, how are you able to judge what a child could or could not understand?
Children are able to quickly understand things we adults often overlook or discount because they haven't yet developed fully formed and codified opinions, as well as a self defining philosophy of life. If a child says 'there is a bird in the tree over there' he isn't speculating, he is saying this because he did indeed see a bird in the tree.
We adults ...[text shortened]... culation into fact based primarily on personal beliefs, preconceptions and prejudicial thinking.
Are you sure the child understands about bird in trees better than I do? I don't think so.
The truth of the matter is that when Grampy said 'even a child can understand' he was implying that the message was simple and not as you would have us believe that children are better at understanding.
Further, he said it because he thought that would get him out of having to explain, because the implication is that anyone who asks for an explanation of something that is so simple 'a child can understand' is dumb, so people will refrain from asking.
The truth however is that a child cannot understand it. Nor does Grampy. Nor do you. Otherwise, you would both be rushing to explain it in terms that adults can understand, instead of this pathetic argument over whether or not children are superior understanders.
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeChess i think has made me less of an impulsive person.
Chess i think has made me less of an impulsive person. I'm much better now at considering the whole board and the consequences of the moves i make. Always forget which GM said it, but when 'you find a good move, look for a better one.' - I try to follow this same philosophy in life. (But yes, we shouldn't ignore our instincts).
Will look out for the book.
Same here, that's why I've decided to start playing again.