It's all about the cash.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2020 7:50 pm
Why would one not choose the form of "religion" one felt or knew to be "most true"? That would be silly, surely.
Regards
DL
It's all about the cash.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2020 7:50 pm
Why would one not choose the form of "religion" one felt or knew to be "most true"? That would be silly, surely.
Your religion is?Greatest I am wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2020 9:24 pmIt's all about the cash.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2020 7:50 pm
Why would one not choose the form of "religion" one felt or knew to be "most true"? That would be silly, surely.
Please show this testimony.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2020 9:23 pmAtheists say not. So do other Materialists.Greatest I am wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2020 9:20 pm All labels aside; all have a tribal nature and all have a spiritual side.
So I guess you'd have to say they were lying or misguided.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/materialism-philosophyGreatest I am wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2020 9:36 pmPlease show this testimony.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2020 9:23 pmAtheists say not. So do other Materialists.Greatest I am wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2020 9:20 pm All labels aside; all have a tribal nature and all have a spiritual side.
So I guess you'd have to say they were lying or misguided.
What is this trash?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2020 9:44 pmhttps://www.britannica.com/topic/materialism-philosophyGreatest I am wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2020 9:36 pmPlease show this testimony.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2020 9:23 pm
Atheists say not. So do other Materialists.
So I guess you'd have to say they were lying or misguided.
You are a goof.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2020 9:34 pmYour religion is?Greatest I am wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2020 9:24 pmIt's all about the cash.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2020 7:50 pm
Why would one not choose the form of "religion" one felt or knew to be "most true"? That would be silly, surely.
If that's what you meant, hat's kind of a surprising level of honesty. I was referring to Gnosticism...don't you think it's true? Do you have a "cash" motive for believing it?
Everybody but you seems to know it's a religion.
It is classed as that, no argument, but religions are tribes, and there can and are Gnostics in all tribes.
Well, there's a variety of Gnostics, it's true.Greatest I am wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 11:05 pmIt is classed as that, no argument, but religions are tribes, and there can and are Gnostics in all tribes.
Sure some are tribal. Better said, we are all tribal but some do not mature, god wise, as quickly as others.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 11:16 pmWell, there's a variety of Gnostics, it's true.Greatest I am wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 11:05 pmIt is classed as that, no argument, but religions are tribes, and there can and are Gnostics in all tribes.
That doesn't suggest they're not "religious," nor that they don't have core elements of their "faith" in common. They do.
I don't see value in that work - but maybe missed something, what do you see of value in it? curious.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2020 2:01 am But I do value it. It has some really neat things in it,
I'd welcome your top 3 or 4 works and why you value theme.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2020 2:01 amso tell my why you like those works above Sir!
Oh, different reasons...not all for the same reason, obviously.
Thanks for asking - and why this forum is here (discussion).
LOL - literal guffaw - and yes i probably did deserve it .Greatest I am wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2020 6:54 pmYou likely deserved it.gaffo wrote: ↑Sun Feb 09, 2020 10:08 pmexcept you told me to in effect fuck myself last year, even after you and i conversing in that other now gone forum "bible-disscussion" for what? 10 years?Greatest I am wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2020 11:44 pm
I tend to reciprocate and do not raise my voice till the volume coming to me is high
It's a very typologically complex book, one that has a lot to offer, but does not offer much on the surface. There's a lot of digging and background, cultural, historical, linguistic, and symbolic, that has to go on to get stuff out of it.gaffo wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2020 4:52 am
to each their own
I don't see value in that work - but maybe missed something, what do you see of value in it? curious.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2020 2:01 am But I do value it. It has some really neat things in it,
Too hard a task, I fear. It's not so easy, because I see different values in each of the books. Some are easier, but that doesn't necessarily make them better. Some are harder, but that doesn't make them bad. The value in each of them is that it does what it's supposed to do.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2020 2:01 am I'd welcome your top 3 or 4 works and why you value theme.
Thanks for asking - and why this forum is here (discussion).
Hmm...Well, I would have to say I see those books differently. There is something important to your gloss on Amos; I can go with you there. However, I don't think you've caught Jonah's purpose right, and I'd actually suppose the opposite from your gloss on Job. But, of course, you're entitled to say what you think there. I asked.Amos - Theme: Pride =Sin
Jonah - Theme: Universal Humanism
Job - theme: Question not God.
they are the same Sir, same theology - slight differences that do not matter (Jesus is the Massiah and Son of God is all that matters at the core)- so Cahtolics are as Christian as Prots.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2020 7:51 pm
So your view is that "Catholic" and "Christian" are the same thing?
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2020 5:13 amIt's a very typologically complex book, one that has a lot to offer, but does not offer much on the surface. There's a lot of digging and background, cultural, historical, linguistic, and symbolic, that has to go on to get stuff out of it.gaffo wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2020 4:52 am
to each their own
I don't see value in that work - but maybe missed something, what do you see of value in it? curious.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2020 2:01 am But I do value it. It has some really neat things in it,
Too hard a task, I fear. It's not so easy, because I see different values in each of the books. Some are easier, but that doesn't necessarily make them better. Some are harder, but that doesn't make them bad. The value in each of them is that it does what it's supposed to do.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2020 2:01 am I'd welcome your top 3 or 4 works and why you value theme.
So, for example, Proverbs is a book of...proverbs. Those are short sayings, not necessarily always connected to each other immediately. But you'll get nothing out of the Psalms by reading them as if it were composed of proverbs, because it's a kind of flowing song-book instead. Or if you treat Romans like a collection of proverbs, it will make no sense at all. But if you look for the kinds of thematic strings one gets in a book like Hebrews, while one is reading Proverbs, one is bound to be disappointed....and so on.
Different purposes, different content, different styles...66 books, and each with its own value. A very hard task to compare those "apples to oranges."
Thanks for asking - and why this forum is here (discussion).
in order of personal favorites:
Hmm...Well, I would have to say I see those books differently. There is something important to your gloss on Amos; I can go with you there. However, I don't think you've caught Jonah's purpose right, and I'd actually suppose the opposite from your gloss on Job. But, of course, you're entitled to say what you think there. I asked.Amos - Theme: Pride =Sin
Jonah - Theme: Universal Humanism
Job - theme: Question not God.
Thanks for sharing.