Your saved as soon as you accept jesus.

[The Hammer]

Monist means no thors hammer.

How so? Does not mean anything of the sort to me.

 

[Desert Snake]

How so? Does not mean anything of the sort to me.

Great.

 

[The Hammer]

Great.

Huh? You've lost me now. *shrug*

 

[Desert Snake]

Huh? You've lost me now. *shrug*

What. You said, no, monism doesn't mean no thors hammer. I said great. Wheres the confusion.

 

[The Hammer]

I'm a monotheistic polytheist.

That does not seem to make any sense to me at all. How do you believe in only one god an many gods at the same time?

 

[Desert Snake]

That does not seem to make any sense to me at all. How do you believe in only one god an many gods at the same time?

See, you think that is different from what you stated, but monism implies a singularity. How is what you said any more logical.

 

[The Hammer]

See, you think that is different from what you stated, but monism implies a singularity. How is what you said any more logical.

Monism and monotheism are not one in the same. They are compatible. But not the same thing.

If you are curious on my meaning, then please refer to my thread "Medium Polytheism". I have a post there that outlines what I mean.

 

[Desert Snake]

Monism and monotheism are not one in the same. They are compatible. But not the same thing.

If you are curious on my meaning, then please refer to my thread "Medium Polytheism". I have a post there that outlines what I mean.

Yeah, I know that monotheism is different from monism, but I don't see how what you said makes sense.

 

[The Hammer]

Yeah, I know that monotheism is different from monism, but I don't see how what you said makes sense.

You stated that Monism implied a singularity, and with that we are in agreement. The thing is, I do not view the singularity as god. I view it, and have experienced it, as pure energy. Not a deity.

This is from my thread from earlier today, so keep in mind it was in response to someone who mentioned a likeness to henotheism:

--Henotheism does not apply to me personally because I do not believe that the source is God. For example, you can have one "energy" in your house (Electricity), but have multiple items plugged in to that power source deriving life from it (appliances). Electricity doesn't do anything by itself (raw power), but it is necessary for the appliances to work. In the sense that Nwyfre isn't God, but it is what the Gods are made of/derived from.--

Nwyfre is a welsh term meaning "air/spirit/conciousness/breath". This is what I call the source. Or basic underlying current that permeates the universe. Gods, are manifestations of this energy in personal form. This does not mean that all gods are one god. They are each distinct entities with their own personalities. But they are all made of the same "stuff".

EDIT: You can also read this short article or further explanation. Polytheistic Monism: A Guest Post by Christopher Scott Thompson (Part One)

 

[Aupmanyav]

I have a powerful testimony. Jesus Christ himself saved me.

I thought our exchange was over. You ask me to go by a testimony, I have the proof of what I believe.

 

[Yes]

I can think of many better ways for Jesus to let us know. he didn't have to die. Are you telling me God could not have come up with a better plan? One that didn't involve a sadistic suicide?

Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one's life for one's friends.

Also i was a devout Christian at one point because I was raised that way, and I truly feared God. i was worried about thought crimes and everything. I obeyed and followed all the rituals, and yet understanding didn't just magically pop into my head. So I guess your theory is wrong right?

You were probably raised in a false denomination. There are no rituals we have to follow. We have to do more than just fear God. Most likely, you were raised thinking you were saved, even though you never even admitted you were a sinner. What sins did you repent?

Also the bible frequently convinces people though miracles so you're wrong again:

"Exodus 14:18,31 - The ultimate goal of the parting of the Sea was that God might gain honor, so the people would fear the Lord and believe in Him."

"Joshua 4:22-24 - God caused the Jordan to stop flowing, so Israel could pass on dry ground. This gave people reason to fear the Lord as God forever."

"* Lazarus - John 11:47,48. After Jesus raised Lazarus, His enemies admitted He did many miracles."

"
* Lame man - Acts 4:10,14-16. After Peter & John healed the lame man (3:1-10), the Jewish opponents admitted it was a great miracle.

* Saul of Tarsus - Acts 9:1-18. After His resurrection, Jesus appeared to the persecutor Saul to convince Him of the resurrection."

During the laying of the foundation of the new covenant...God testified to what Jesus and the Apostle said. God testified to it with signs and miracles. The foundation has been laid. God has already testified to it.

Why can't I get some evidence? Clearly the father and Jesus are totally okay with understanding first, then obedience. They didn't expect these ancient superstitious people to believe, so why expect a skeptical 21st century scientist ,who knows a variety of different religions, to believe? That's completely unfair.

Jesus reveals himself to those who get his teachings and obeys them

 

[Yes]

I thought our exchange was over. You ask me to go by a testimony, I have the proof of what I believe.

If you want to know if what Jesus says is true or not, then you can find out for yourself. I am telling you how you can find out. I am telling you something that most people do not know.

We can find God's Truth and not some denomination's truth. We can find God's truth by getting Jesus' teachings and obeying them.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I get my truth by reading science books and not from a heavily edited 4th Century book.

 

[Theodore A. Jones]

The works we are not saved by are the ceremonial works. Those are the works that do not save. We still have to obey.
Jesus taught for us to obey, as did everyone else in the Bible.

Paul is not referencing cerimonial law nor the Sinai code of law in his statement.

 

[Yes]

I get my truth by reading science books and not from a heavily edited 4th Century book.

You have no ideas what you are missing.

 

[Theodore A. Jones]

I wouldn't even be back in this conversation, had you not quoted me from something I said a week ago.

I am not at fault. You showed back up here by your own decision not to remain as you were.

 

[Yes]

Paul is not referencing cerimonial law nor the Sinai code of law in his statement.

When the New Testament says we are saved by faith and not works---the works spoken of are the ceremonial works.
Many misunderstand Paul about no works, they think Paul is saying we do not have to obey. Again, the works that no longer save are the ceremonial works.

Paul is an ex Pharisee, and the Jews and Gentiles knew that the Gentiles were enemies of God and excluded because of the ceremonial laws

 

[Theodore A. Jones]

In Isaiah, God was speaking to His children, children who had His commandments. His children are expected to obey Him.

We must obey Jesus to be saved. We must humble ourselves.


Jesus tells us what we have to do to be saved. We do not even receive the Holy Spirit unless we obey, see Acts 5:32. Jesus gives the Holy Spirit to those he accepts, see Acts 15:8. Jesus accepts those who fear God and does what is right, see Acts 10:35.

We have to admit we are sinners and be sorry for our sins. We have to repent of our sins, and prove our repentance. We have to call on the Lord to help us.

 

[Theodore A. Jones]

When the New Testament says we are save by faith and not works---the works spoken of are the ceremonial works.
Many misunderstand Paul about no works, they think Paul is saying we do not have to obey. Again, the works that no longer save are the ceremonial works.

Again. You have no idea of what you are talking about. Ceremonial "works" never saved anyone who performed them.

 

[The Hammer]

I am not at fault. You showed back up here by your own decision not to remain as you were.

Wow, another theist who can't accept responsibility for their actions nice, go figure. I never said it wasn't my decision to come back. But your actions (quoting me), lead to my response (coming back), simple cause and effect.

Now, again, I made quiet a few posts between when you last decided to be condescending, and this attempt.

Do you have anything you want to discuss/debate? Or is this again another attempt to just push buttons?