Ridiculous statement of Jesus?

[JoStories]

It may seem difficult to imagine but just look at it this way: you have a better chance of teaching a person a new principle to live by when they are twelve than when they are 42. Why is that? Because over time a person's decisions shape who they are and it becomes more and more difficult for that person to move to a new path the farther down the rode they are in their current path.
So if a persons spirit continues with them to their next life (assuming a reincarnation scenario) it is conceivable that the it will be more difficult for them to change in that second life than it was for them to change in their first. This is of course assuming that we take with us equally both the good and bad characteristics we gained from the previous life - which would be fair.
And so there would seem to be a law of diminishing returns for these additional lives until perhaps there are no returns at all. Also I consider the fact that we cannot remember what we did wrong (or right) in the previous life / lives and what effect those decisions had on us. This means all we take from the previous life is more of what we became rather than what we knew (intellectually). This also means there is a higher chance we will continue with and repeat the mistakes (and the good) we did in the previous life rather than learning from it. This would slow the learning process down considerably in my opinion.

1. In general, I agree with you that the older someone is, the harder it is to teach them, however, some can and do learn. But where it pertains to one lifetime V the next, that does not work that way. Each life is unique and one does not impact another, save that one evolves over time. Here is a wonderful article written by His Holiness, the Dali Lama, on the topic. http://www.dalailama.com/messages/s...nzin-gyatso-on-the-issue-of-his-reincarnation.

 

[JoStories]

I don't think so. I have never once had a conversation with Outhouse where our discussion was about the content of the text in the scriptures. Outhouse always argues about what scholars, academics and archaeologists say about the accuracy of the stories ( not the doctrine) in the bible. In other words Outhouse never argues from a theological standpoint but from a historical, scientific or academic standpoint.

Now as you are well aware faith goes beyond what scientists can and can't currently explain. That is why I pay little attention to him (Outhouse, that is).

I understand that having faith changes how one interprets or understands that meaning that seems to come from a faith POV. And yes, I agree that Outhouse does not have that POV. However, that being said, I have learned a lot from Outhouse and find his views refreshing and thought provoking. I try not to see things only from the POV that comes of faith. I like to see all. I have told you in the past that I was raised to try to understand many faiths, including none. That gave me an incredible insight into how faith can and does change how one sees these things. And ultimately led to my intently studying theology not only from a faith POV but from an historical one, which included the understanding of it from time frame, culture, language and so on. There is why I love reading and chatting with Outhouse and deeply respect him. I don't agree with everything he says but that does not negate that I find his views something that gives me pause and lets me consider faith and my POV from another person's thoughts. I am, after all, an academic myself.

 

[JoStories]

That is not a supportable position.

As you are well aware faith is thinking something exist without any evidence in support.


It would be similar to saying imagination goes beyond what scientists can and can't currently explain.

Agreed but isn't the point about imagination what can and has led to many scientific discoveries? A good part of what Steven Hawking postulates is not exactly provable. Yet, the scientific community accepts it because it follows scientific ideas. People of history imagined many things that today are commonplace and yet then, would have been considered heretical or even something of the quintessential 'devil'.

 

[JoStories]

Without understanding the a historical, scientific or academic standpoint, you cannot begin to understand the theological.

Again, I agree but only insofar as I am an academic. I know full well the need, at least for me, to understand the linguistic, cultural and historical aspects of religion and faith. However, there are those, like my mom, who feel the understanding faith from that POV is not needed and who am I to say that she is wrong in her analysis, particularly if it gives her comfort in the last days of her life?

 

[JoStories]

This is not true. If it were then that would mean no society has ever understood their theology unless they had historians, scientists and academics. That makes no sense at all.

I cannot agree with this Thanda. If it were true, there would be no need for those who lead others in their various faiths, such as Rabbis, priests, pastors, etc. Some who follow a faith do so blindly, and I don;t mean that in any way to be disrespectful. Again using my mother as an example, she completely accepts the Bible as truth and has never studied it from the POV that myself or Outhouse does. She understands her faith at a face value only. I agree she has the understanding that God imparts to her but that is not provable by any means. That does not diminish its weight for her but rather simply points that some people need others who have studied their religion much more in depth than she.

 

[JoStories]

Um if you have not noticed, the worlds population goes to a place 1 to 2 times a week to be taught by those educated more on the topic.

I mean lets look at you for example, I doubt you even know Jesus real first name he and his followers used.


If you don't even know a mans first name, how can you know the man? By reading a book written by unknown authors from a different culture and religion who never heard a word he said, living in a different part of the world decades later?

I understand where you are coming from but for some people, there is no need to know a first name in order to find comfort in that faith. Knowing the man from an historical POV does not mean a person cannot understand it from a faith POV. For you and me, that might seem obtuse and even childlike in some ways but for some people, it is all they need.

 

[JoStories]

Thanda.

You said you embrace the truth. I have showed evidence you do no such thing, you refuse truth in many places.


Then you tried ti dance around the subject saying your own personal truth is not the same as everyone else's truth.



There is only one truth, the question is how aware are you of said truth.

I think there are two understandings of the word truth here. Truth from an academic POV is based on what is factual and I get that. But truth can be based on belief alone. I have tried to explain to my mother that Jesus and what he may have said is not based on any degree of historical proofs but she turns a blind eye to that and firmly and adamantly states it is absolute truth for her. Who am I to try to deny her that comfort?

 

[JoStories]

You do know the sermon on the mount has no historicity at all?


Still don't know Jesus first REAL name? yet you live your life around the person?

I agree that there is no historical evidence of the Sermon of the Mount however, there allegorical morals and beauty of the Sermon is really something that even I, as a Buddhist, find to be thought provoking and for me, provides a deeper understanding of God. I don't need history to understand God. However, I think that history also provides me with another level of understanding.

 

[JoStories]

Faith is substantiated because it comes from God. Know your scriptures.

Knowing your scriptures from a faith based POV is vastly different from understanding them from an academic and historical POV. Neither needs to be disrespected as both have their reasons and advantages. Perhaps if you tried to view this from that vantage point?

 

[Thief]

I usually try to spot the perspective from the vantage point of the speaker.
(and it typically reveals the fulcrum point)

 

[JoStories]

"Intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function."

I was just reminded of a story about several people who saw the same thing, but described it differently -and that thing was a chameleon.

Either scripture is purely of man, or God decides what is presented, known, or understood -even altered -and at what point.

No book written by men is free of bias. If it were truly what God wrote, then the entire world would agree with its content, yet we know that is not true as there are many denominations and many faiths. Is it not possible that all might contain a kernel of that eternal truth that must be gleaned through study and understanding?

 

[Thief]

No book written by men is free of bias. If it were truly what God wrote, then the entire world would agree with its content, yet we know that is not true as there are many denominations and many faiths. Is it not possible that all might contain a kernel of that eternal truth that must be gleaned through study and understanding?

this assumes that all men would be able and willing to agree with God.

Isn't Man notorious for nay saying?

 

[JoStories]

Mt 13.34

The Historicity of it does not matter. It is the spiritual understanding that counts. And do you know why? Because God exists, the very one that you discuss all the time

Of course the historicity matters. If that were not the case, one would simply read the book and accept it at face value yet we know this is not so as there are many interpretations and therefore, many different faiths and views of that faith. The fact that you say God exists does not mean that God was not able to 'speak' to all faiths and all peoples through all of those various faiths.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Knowing your scriptures from a faith based POV is vastly different from understanding them from an academic and historical POV. Neither needs to be disrespected as both have their reasons and advantages. Perhaps if you tried to view this from that vantage point?

Who said they had no advantage? I only point out that, ULTIMATELY, they are no help. Explain the history of a house to me if you wish, but I have the key to the door, and that is what counts. Understand that if Outhouse sticks with his history, I would respect him for it, and as much as he appears to claim he does, he doesn't.

 

[Robert.Evans]

No book written by men is free of bias. If it were truly what God wrote, then the entire world would agree with its content, yet we know that is not true as there are many denominations and many faiths. Is it not possible that all might contain a kernel of that eternal truth that must be gleaned through study and understanding?

Scripture is divinely inspired, but in no way does it mean that everyone would understand it unless you are enabled. Academics appear to constantly miss this.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Of course the historicity matters. If that were not the case, one would simply read the book and accept it at face value yet we know this is not so as there are many interpretations and therefore, many different faiths and views of that faith. The fact that you say God exists does not mean that God was not able to 'speak' to all faiths and all peoples through all of those various faiths.

I will state it again, that ULTIMATELY, it makes no difference. And it certainly isn't something that should stop your own understanding.

 

[JoStories]

this assumes that all men would be able and willing to agree with God.

Isn't Man notorious for nay saying?

I believe that was what I was saying Thief. IOW, that man wrote the books with their own inherent bias and therefore may or may not have written what God intended, if one can say that God had any import at all.

 

[JoStories]

I will state it again, that ULTIMATELY, it makes no difference. And it certainly isn't something that should stop your own understanding.

That is your opinion. For me, studying this from both points of view adds more depth to that understanding. You can see it however it works for you. That does not mean it cannot work differently for other people.

 

[JoStories]

Scripture is divinely inspired, but in no way does it mean that everyone would understand it unless you are enabled. Academics appear to constantly miss this.

Sacred texts may or may not have been divinely inspired. There is no proof of that. One can understand it on multiple levels and stating that no academics understand that is a vast over generalization. Many do and you underestimate theologians greatly. Or do you not now consider your B Theiring an academic as well, albeit largely discredited by those in the field.

 

[Thief]

I believe that was what I was saying Thief. IOW, that man wrote the books with their own inherent bias and therefore may or may not have written what God intended, if one can say that God had any import at all.

but that's not what I intended to convey.
the authors of scripture believed they were doing the right thing.
true....the words have been turned over a few times....
but the written word is believed by many to be the Word.

what then?
shall we compose the proper intention?....and present a fresh copy?

(what we do this moment ...included?)