What Did Jesus Intend?

[Shaker]

You and your ilk have done it to me before. I do not care to go through thousands of posts just to prove smoething you already know.

Quelle surprise ...

[Nearly Sane]

You never really feel alive until you know what a bust of Putin feels like as a plug for one's rectal passage. I do not care who knows that I have done this  thousands of times.

Indeed

[ad_orientem]

Quelle surprise ...

Would you?

[Shaker]

Would you?

Would I what?

[ad_orientem]

Would I what?

Go through thousands of pists just to prove something we all already know.

[Shaker]

Go through thousands of pists just to prove something we all already know.

We have a search facility - unless a post has been removed (there are periodic purges, unfortunately) it doesn't take long to find something.

We're not talking about "something that everybody already knows" - that's just your assertion.

[ad_orientem]

We have a search facility - unless a post has been removed (there are periodic purges, unfortunately) it doesn't take long to find something.

We're not talking about "something that everybody already knows" - that's just your assertion.

You'd have to remember exactly which posts. Each of us has thousands of posts between us. I have had it done to me many times.

[Gordon]

Yes.  In the same way that scientists can check a discovery against existing scientific documentation, to decide whether it is likely to be realistic/viable, so Christians can use documentary evidence to see whther a new idea or teaching (spirit) is realistic viable.  If the scientific discovery flies too much in the face of accepted norms, one has to reconsider it, recheck it, try to recreate it, etc.  The same goes with matters spiritual.

Scientists use an established method, where the various aspects are both described and where appropriate use of these can be checked, such as by replication studies - so what do you spiritual guys use as a method that would be comparable to the scientific method?

[Jack Knave]

One way is to see if it has been consistently believed by the Church.

So the 'Devil' fools one influential person in the church in the past and then those lies get passed on through the ages and becomes gospel......brilliant, totally fool proof then. 

[Jack Knave]

Yes.  In the same way that scientists can check a discovery against existing scientific documentation, to decide whether it is likely to be realistic/viable, so Christians can use documentary evidence to see whther a new idea or teaching (spirit) is realistic viable.  If the scientific discovery flies too much in the face of accepted norms, one has to reconsider it, recheck it, try to recreate it, etc.  The same goes with matters spiritual.

So subject to cultural norms then, what people see as being the accepted behaviour!!!

[Jack Knave]

You never really feel alive until you know what a bust of Putin feels like as a plug for one's rectal passage. I do not care who knows that I have done this  thousands of times.

I'm starting to worry about you Nearly!!! Indeed I am.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm unable to look at a chicken without getting the impulse to rub its excretions on my head.

Indeed

[Jack Knave]

I'm unable to look at a chicken without getting the impulse to rub its excretions on my head.

Hey everybody, we've lost Nearly Sane who has succumbed to the insanity of this board....RIP Nearly, we'll miss you. 

[Nearly Sane]

I have a collection of balloons on which I have written Ed Milliband in tiny letters

Indeed

[jeremyp]

And you know that for sure, because?

He doesn't know it because he is wrong. Only a fantasist would think the traditional attribution of the authorship of the gospels is correct.

[jeremyp]

I corrected it for her.

You lied about what she wrote.

[jeremyp]

Would I what?

Insert a bust of Putin in your rectum of course. Haven't you been reading Ad O as abridged by NS?

[ad_orientem]

You lied about what she wrote.

Not at all. Did she not write the words I quoted? I merely corrected it by leaving the last bit out, something which has been done to me on untold occassions by you and your ilk and when I mention it no one bats an eyelid.. You're hypocrites, the lot of you, but then I wouldn't expect anything less from you lot.

[Shaker]

... except when asked to provide examples of this alleged "hypocrisy" you bluster, make some feeble excuse and do one.

[ad_orientem]

... except when asked to provide examples of this alleged "hypocrisy" you bluster, make some feeble excuse and do one.

If you don't believe me then call me an outright liar if you dare. If not, then it's not reasonable to expect me to go through thousands of posts. I really wouldn't know where to start.

[Leonard James]

Not at all. Did she not write the words I quoted? I merely corrected it by leaving the last bit out, something which has been done to me on untold occassions by you and your ilk and when I mention it no one bats an eyelid.. You're hypocrites, the lot of you, but then I wouldn't expect anything less from you lot.

Oh dear! Keep your hair on, AO!

[Hope]

Scientists use an established method, where the various aspects are both described and where appropriate use of these can be checked, such as by replication studies - so what do you spiritual guys use as a method that would be comparable to the scientific method?

Gordon, scientistrs don't only use the more complicated methods you refer to; they will sometimes look at documentation from previous experimentation and/or interpretation of results and compare the 'fingerprints' as it were.  Take for example, the latest N. Korean nuclear test.  The seismologists have been able to compare the footprint of this latest test with those of previous tests and have suggested that, as the various footprints are similar, the device tested recently may well have been the same as in the past - ie, not a hydrogen bomb.  It would be interesting to see the radiation readings taken by Japanese and Chinese scientists.

A comparable method in the spiritual realm is to compare the teachings of this or that religious teacher with the teachings of a given religion's founder or initiator.  For instance, if a Hndu teacher was to start teaching that eating beef was acceptable for a Hindu, Hindus around the word would question how valid that teaching was as Hindu teaching.  Similarly, if a Christian teacher was suddenly to start teaching publically that it was acceptable to kill other humans simply for the sake of killing, the majority of Christians would question that teaching having compared it with Jesus' teaching. 

[jeremyp]

Not at all. Did she not write the words I quoted?

You reversed the intent of her post by omitting a word. That is dishonest.

I merely corrected it

No. You reversed the meaning. It was correct before you doctored it. Let me remind you that Floo's post claimed that the church is not infallible. Your amendment changed it to "the church is infallible". Nobody seriously believes your version.

something which has been done to me on untold occasions

When it happens to you, you are free to challenge the perpetrator. Claiming that something bad is done to you is not justification for doing the same thing to somebody else. That is hypocrisy.

You're hypocrites, the lot of you, but then I wouldn't expect anything less from you lot.

We're evil atheists. You're a Christian, you are supposed to hold yourself to a higher standard.

[jeremyp]

A comparable method in the spiritual realm is to compare the teachings of this or that religious teacher with the teachings of a given religion's founder or initiator.  For instance, if a Hndu teacher was to start teaching that eating beef was acceptable for a Hindu, Hindus around the word would question how valid that teaching was as Hindu teaching.  Similarly, if a Christian teacher was suddenly to start teaching publically that it was acceptable to kill other humans simply for the sake of killing, the majority of Christians would question that teaching having compared it with Jesus' teaching.

Your examples don't have anything to do with the supernatural. What are you talking about?

[Gordon]

Gordon, scientistrs don't only use the more complicated methods you refer to; they will sometimes look at documentation from previous experimentation and/or interpretation of results and compare the 'fingerprints' as it were.  Take for example, the latest N. Korean nuclear test.  The seismologists have been able to compare the footprint of this latest test with those of previous tests and have suggested that, as the various footprints are similar, the device tested recently may well have been the same as in the past - ie, not a hydrogen bomb.  It would be interesting to see the radiation readings taken by Japanese and Chinese scientists.

This is all naturalistic science, where if needed you could drill down from the summary of the results to the details of the methods used to obtain and analyse data.

A comparable method in the spiritual realm is to compare the teachings of this or that religious teacher with the teachings of a given religion's founder or initiator.  For instance, if a Hndu teacher was to start teaching that eating beef was acceptable for a Hindu, Hindus around the word would question how valid that teaching was as Hindu teaching.  Similarly, if a Christian teacher was suddenly to start teaching publically that it was acceptable to kill other humans simply for the sake of killing, the majority of Christians would question that teaching having compared it with Jesus' teaching.

No even remotely comparable to science, since you don't have a method or data: just opinions/superstitions dressed up as theology. It seems you have set the bar so low here that you'll need to be careful not to trip over it.