Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Spirituality

Spirituality

  1. 14 Nov '17 20:49 / 1 edit
    In the “What the Good Samaritan did” thread I said I would post some more insight into my claim that with that parable he was demonstrating that goodness of intent and truth itself is not subject to doctrine as some here are keen on defending.

    Let’s consider the account of Philip and the Eunuch in Acts 8:26-40.

    In Deuteronomy it is said that Eunucks shall not enter the holy place, elsewhere Judaism was strict on attire, nationality and purity of job, e.g. tax collectors be8ng considered low class spiritually.

    But look at Philip with this effectively asexual Ethiopian treasurer;

    Verse 37
    And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?”
    And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him.

    “What prevents me being baptised?”

    Answer: Nothing mate, you go for it and ignore all the dogmatic preachers and those who insist on beliefs in trinities and the like for salvation. As Jesus was saying in the parable of the Good Samaritan, it is nothing to do with doctrine.
  2. Standard member Ghost of a Duke
    Zen Master
    14 Nov '17 21:11
    Originally posted by @divegeester
    In the “What the Good Samaritan did” thread I said I would post some more insight into my claim that with that parable he was demonstrating that goodness of intent and truth itself is not subject to doctrine as some here are keen on defending.

    Let’s consider the account of Philip and the Eunuch in Acts 8:26-40.

    In Deuteronomy it is said that Eunu ...[text shortened]... on. As Jesus was saying in the parable of the Good Samaritan, it is nothing to do with doctrine.
    Luke 7:36-50 is probably another example of such 'goodness of intent' with Jesus surprising the Pharisee by allowing the fallen woman to wash his feet. (And even forgiving her sins).

    “If Jesus were a prophet, he would know that the woman touching him is a sinner!”

    Jesus knew. It just didn't bother him. - “Do you see this woman? When I came into your house, you gave me no water for my feet, but she washed my feet with her tears and dried them with her hair. You gave me no kiss of greeting, but she has been kissing my feet since I came in.You did not put oil on my head, but she poured perfume on my feet. I tell you that her many sins are forgiven, so she showed great love."
  3. Standard member sonship
    the corrected one.
    14 Nov '17 21:19 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by @divegeester
    Answer: Nothing mate, you go for it and ignore all the dogmatic preachers and those who insist on beliefs in trinities and the like for salvation. As Jesus was saying in the parable of the Good Samaritan, it is nothing to do with doctrine.

    Except for Unitarian doctrines of course.
  4. 14 Nov '17 21:33
    Originally posted by @sonship
    Answer: Nothing mate, you go for it and ignore all the dogmatic preachers and those who insist on beliefs in trinities and the like for salvation. As Jesus was saying in the parable of the Good Samaritan, it is nothing to do with doctrine.

    Except for Unitarian doctrines of course.
    Nope.
  5. 16 Nov '17 13:08 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by @sonship
    Answer: Nothing mate, you go for it and ignore all the dogmatic preachers and those who insist on beliefs in trinities and the like for salvation. As Jesus was saying in the parable of the Good Samaritan, it is nothing to do with doctrine.

    Except for Unitarian doctrines of course.
    Sonship, do you accept that given the context of the time and religious culture in which Philip was living, that his actions here truly show that adherence to the minutiae of doctrine is not in the best spirit of the gospel?
  6. Standard member sonship
    the corrected one.
    16 Nov '17 13:19 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by @divegeester
    In the “What the Good Samaritan did” thread I said I would post some more insight into my claim that with that parable he was demonstrating that goodness of intent and truth itself is not subject to doctrine as some here are keen on defending.

    Let’s consider the account of Philip and the Eunuch in Acts 8:26-40.

    In Deuteronomy it is said that Eunu ...[text shortened]... on. As Jesus was saying in the parable of the Good Samaritan, it is nothing to do with doctrine.
    ie. "Doctrines are NOT important!! .... except mine, that is." Struts the Unitarian.
  7. Standard member sonship
    the corrected one.
    16 Nov '17 13:25 / 1 edit
    Let’s consider the account of Philip and the Eunuch in Acts 8:26-40.


    Phillip must have encouraged him that now was the time for him to be baptized , giving his life over to Christ.

    Interesting ... baptism mentioned as part of the foundation of the Christian Gospel (Hebrews 6:2).

    Must have been some talk of Christian doctrine there.

    Acts 8:26
    " New American Standard Bible
    As they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch said, "Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?"
  8. 16 Nov '17 13:30
    Originally posted by @sonship
    ie. "Doctrines are NOT important!! .... except mine, that is." Struts the Unitarian.
    Why do you keep saying this? I’ve already responded when you mentioned it first time.
  9. 16 Nov '17 13:38
    Originally posted by @sonship
    Answer: Nothing mate, you go for it and ignore all the dogmatic preachers and those who insist on beliefs in trinities and the like for salvation. As Jesus was saying in the parable of the Good Samaritan, it is nothing to do with doctrine.

    Except for Unitarian doctrines of course.
    Sonship, do you accept that given the context of the time and religious culture in which Philip was living, that his actions here truly show that adherence to the minutiae of doctrine is not in the best spirit of the gospel?
  10. Standard member sonship
    the corrected one.
    16 Nov '17 14:07 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by @divegeester
    Sonship, do you accept that given the context of the time and religious culture in which Philip was living, that his actions here truly show that adherence to the minutiae of doctrine is not in the best spirit of the gospel?
    I know where you're coming from.
    And I think I could come up with better examples.

    The context of the time included that believers had been scattered from Jerusalem by persecution going around repeating what they had heard and seen from the twelve apostles. I don't think you would have liked it. You probably would have said that they were all plagiarizing or regurgitating stuff.

    That included teaching about baptism upon believing in Christ the Son of God.
    That was, you know, a doctrinal matter of sorts.

    The Jerusalem believers who had been scattered had continued in the TEACHING and fellowship of the apostles (Acts 2:42)

    Look, you want to say "Sonship you're too much into doctrine." Okay. I plead guilty ... some. Alright, alright. You won that argument this morning.
  11. 16 Nov '17 18:51
    Originally posted by @sonship
    I know where you're coming from.
    And I think I could come up with better examples.
    You’re such a conceited arse at times.