Ridiculous statement of Jesus?

[Thanda]

From what I have seen. They greater the belief the further away from the truth many theist literally run.

Truth is a dangerous word to use in a religious discussion.

I can show you the truth, and have in past and you reject it. With religion comes fanaticism and fundamentalism. The negative does not outweigh the positive but lets be real.


The truth is, Israelites had no exodus as described and were never in Egypt as Israelite slaves.

The truth is Abraham never existed, nor many other characters.

The truth is Israelites were multi cultural and combined two deities into one during the exile.


This is all backed by knowledge and factual evidence to support the truth. It is also in encyclopedias. If you would like sources I can provide then to support every sentence.

I'm quite sure you have no idea about what I mean when I talk about truth. Happily the person I was talking to understood.

Have a good day.

 

[Robert.Evans]

We dont know how he always spoke.

We suspect he used parables in his teachings, but its unlikely nor supported that he "always" spoke in parables.

We the unknown authors who were not witness to a single word he ever said, have him sometimes speaking in parables, but again, not always.

the text says always

 

[Thanda]

the text says always

This is false. The text says he spoke to a particular group people using only parables.

 

[JoStories]

Thanks. If I understand the implications of your doctrine correctly, does that mean that if a person doesn't live a life the God considers to be a path to enlightenment they will get another life and opportunity to do so? If so is there a situation where a person is so stubborn that they will have an infinite amount of lives because they never finally attain to full enlightenment. If so this outcome may very well be termed a hell. Being stuck in an endless cycle because you refuse to embrace the truth.

Not exactly. We decide for ourselves whether or not we have learned enough and it takes sometimes many hundreds of lifetimes to reach enlightenment. God is a concept understood, at least me, to be that energy we strive to connect to. Think of it as your heaven if you will. Its not an issue of stubbornness, although that can be an issue for learning if one needs that, but rather overcoming issues or learning others. In this life, my issues are loss for the most part. My late partner, my children, etc. Its not really a hell concept, although in Buddhist thought there is the Bardo state, which I see as purgatory by way of explanation.

 

[JoStories]

The problem with human beings is that they have the power to choose. And their ability to choose is so strong that they can choose whether to learn when given a lesson or not. So when you say "Each life one learns something more" it is dependent on the premise that that individual will actually choose to learn something more.

Is it not impossible to conceive a situation where an individual has accepted just as much truth as he will ever be willing to accept. What then happens to him? Why would one keep giving him the same lessons (by giving him more lives) if he has clearly come to a point where he is willing to learn no more.

I am not sure how to answer this as I cannot conceive of someone being that obtuse. We strive toward enlightenment by degrees, IMO. IOW, there are levels in a manner of speaking. People can acheive enlightenment within one lifetime or it could take thousands. It is dependent on the person. Yes, a person can choose to live the same lesson who knows how many times but I cannot conceive of someone doing that.

 

[JoStories]

That said I do not believe there is only a heaven and a hell. I believe there are different levels of reward given to people according to the their level of obedience to the laws of righteousness.

You might be interested in reading the following passages which are in one of the sacred books in my faith:

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/88?lang=eng

Verses 1 through 41 contain most of what I am trying to convey in this post.

I agree there are many levels. I dream walk and astral project (no, I will not defend that nor try to explain to those who scoff), and i have seen other levels. Sort of like the Tree of Life from Jewish lore. In your text, I am not overly fond of the word Justified. That word puts me in mind of someone who is judging another. And I don't find that to be a good moral construct. Perhaps I am misreading it but that is how it comes across to me. And btw Thanda, thank you for enlarging the font for me. It is deeply appreciated.

 

[JoStories]

If you would prefer I not quote your posts which are not addressed to me, I will try to remember to comply.

"However, the one verse in question does not state that he was close enough and in fact, states he was not." .....It may indicate he was not at that instant -but does not state he was never.

"Does that mean he could not have gotten that close? Maybe, maybe not." .......is my point

"We cannot know as we were not there" ......I do not know what those present or writing had in their minds.

"and the writers were writing long after the fact." .....I do not know this to be true

Oh my gosh...I did not mean to make it sound as though you cannot speak to me. Holy Mary...I am so sorry. Of course you can. I see your point but the verses do seem, on the surface, to contradict one another. But, as I said, these things were written long after these things took place so anything is possible.

 

[JoStories]

I'm quite sure you have no idea about what I mean when I talk about truth. Happily the person I was talking to understood.

Have a good day.

I did Thanda but Outhouse did have a point as well. But only insofar, IMO, as some will do as he seems to indicate. I do not see that with you and in fact, find your views rather refreshing. I don't agree with all of them of course but nonetheless, I do see you are knowing and understanding truth. But so too, does Outhouse have some good points as well.

 

[JoStories]

the text says always

That is exactly the type of thing that Outhouse was trying to point out. And it is unsubstantiated, Christian apologist rhetoric with no basis in fact.

 

[Thanda]

Not exactly. We decide for ourselves whether or not we have learned enough and it takes sometimes many hundreds of lifetimes to reach enlightenment. God is a concept understood, at least me, to be that energy we strive to connect to. Think of it as your heaven if you will. Its not an issue of stubbornness, although that can be an issue for learning if one needs that, but rather overcoming issues or learning others. In this life, my issues are loss for the most part. My late partner, my children, etc. Its not really a hell concept, although in Buddhist thought there is the Bardo state, which I see as purgatory by way of explanation.

And what happens when someone decides they've learned enough but what they have learnt falls short of what they could and should have learned? What I'm trying to understand is: does a person achieve Nirvana because they say they are ready for it or do they achieve it because they actually are ready for it?

Condolences for your losses.

I am not sure how to answer this as I cannot conceive of someone being that obtuse. We strive toward enlightenment by degrees, IMO. IOW, there are levels in a manner of speaking. People can acheive enlightenment within one lifetime or it could take thousands. It is dependent on the person. Yes, a person can choose to live the same lesson who knows how many times but I cannot conceive of someone doing that.

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.

 

[Thanda]

I agree there are many levels. I dream walk and astral project (no, I will not defend that nor try to explain to those who scoff), and i have seen other levels. Sort of like the Tree of Life from Jewish lore. In your text, I am not overly fond of the word Justified. That word puts me in mind of someone who is judging another. And I don't find that to be a good moral construct. Perhaps I am misreading it but that is how it comes across to me. And btw Thanda, thank you for enlarging the font for me. It is deeply appreciated.

I will have to look up the meaning of dreamwalking and astral projection. But it sounds to me like you are saying you have spiritual (or other worldly) experiences. That seems normal to me: we are spiritual beings after all.

The word justified: Yes it does sound quite final and external and in that sense it may sometimes seem unfair. But note what the Lord is trying to convey in this text. He is saying that through out the universe there are many kingdoms which occupy a certain amount of space. And he goes on to say that in each kingdom there are laws that govern those who live in those kingdoms. He then says that those who do not live according to the law of a particular kingdom have not right to live in that kingdom (they are not justified). Therefore they must live in another kingdom whose laws they will be able to live by.
Though it is not stated clearly in the text in there it is stated that there are four broad categories of kingdoms which exist in the universe. Celestial (the highest), Terrestial, Telestial and the "other kingdom". So there is a place for everyone depending on how willing they were to embrace truth.

But listen to what the Lord says of those who inherit the "other kingdom":

32 And they who remain shall also be quickened; nevertheless, they shall return again to their own place, to enjoy that which they are willing to receive, because they were not willing to enjoy that which they might have received.

33 For what doth it profit a man if a gift is bestowed upon him, and he receive not the gift? Behold, he rejoices not in that which is given unto him, neither rejoices in him who is the giver of the gift.
​

Here the Lord is asking a pertinent question: What does it help to give someone something good if they do not want that good thing? This is why denying people heaven is justified. Heaven is a place, a kingdom, governed by certain laws. And because of the law that the people in heaven live by, heaven is a peaceful and joyful place. So what would it help to force an a violent man to live in a place where he is expected to he peaceful? Would that not be oppressing him? Surely it would be much better to send him to a place where he is allowed to be the kind of man he is.

Also note the following verse:

35 That which breaketh a law, and abideth not by law, but seeketh to become a law unto itself, and willeth to abide in sin, and altogether abideth in sin, cannot be sanctified by law, neither by mercy, justice, nor judgment. Therefore, they must remain filthy still.​

The most important word here "willeth". The judgments of God are just because he gives us what we want. If a person does not want to receive light but wants to remain in darkness what right has God to force him to live in the light anyway? God speaks about people going "to their own place". This gives an indication that people are going to the place where they will feel most comfortable.

​

And below is the last verses I would like to quote from the Book of Mormon in Mormon chapter 9:

3 Then will ye longer deny the Christ, or can ye behold the Lamb of God? Do ye suppose that ye shall dwell with him under a consciousness of your guilt? Do ye suppose that ye could be happy to dwell with that holy Being, when your souls are racked with a consciousness of guilt that ye have ever abused his laws?

4 Behold, I say unto you that ye would be more miserable to dwell with a holy and just God, under a consciousness of your filthiness before him, than ye would to dwell with the damned souls in hell.

5 For behold, when ye shall be brought to see yournakedness before God, and also the glory of God, and theholiness of Jesus Christ, it will kindle a flame of unquenchable fire upon you.​

In conclusion, there is no prize in guessing that the forth kingdom: the "other kingdom" is actually hell or outer darkness.

 

[Thanda]

That is exactly the type of thing that Outhouse was trying to point out. And it is unsubstantiated, Christian apologist rhetoric with no basis in fact.

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).

 

[outhouse]

Now as you are well aware faith goes beyond what scientists can and can't currently explain.

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.

 

[outhouse]

Outhouse never argues from a theological standpoint but from a historical, scientific or academic standpoint.

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

 

[outhouse]

the text says always

Provide sources.

The text was written by many different people who were not there.

 

[outhouse]

I'm quite sure you have no idea about what I mean when I talk about truth. Happily the person I was talking to understood.

Have a good day.

Only thing is you don't get to personally define what truth is when refusing it.

 

[outhouse]

This is false. The text says he spoke to a particular group people using only parables.

That is correct.

Not only that we have to look at the first time this was said and by who.

Unfortunately said person never supplies sources for his statements so we can examine the possible historicity.

 

[Thanda]

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

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.

 

[Thanda]

Only thing is you don't get to personally define what truth is when refusing it.

I have no idea what you're talking about here. I was talking to JoStories about truth. Truth, like most English words, has multiple meanings which depend on context. JoStories understood quite well the meaning of my use of the word truth according to the context. You apparently do not understand it.

 

[outhouse]

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.

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?