We attempted The Problem of Evil, and on that trip found potholes, sinkholes, roadblock, and landslides, as well as having to battle the cross-traffic all the way. I'm sure that nothing new would be found if we attempted The Trinity.
What is meant by the word gods in that verse?
Agreed, adding another unprovable claim won't help.
You told me about authors that you recommend I do not read, then mention umpteen books(none by name) that you say will leave the reader unsure.
You know exactly what we mean and exactly what we are talking about. But instead of answering us, you are grading papers. If you can pick out our mistakes and tell us how they should be corrected, then you know what we are asking and saying.
Very well explained and easily understood.
It can lead to other than Trinity if you take the advice you give me and read up on all the other gods that the people who wrote the Torah also believed existed in addition to the god of Abraham. There is a reason he is called the god of Abraham.
And your efforts are acknowledged and appreciated. Unfortunately, and I know I am guilty of it, with the way this site acts I try to get out what I am saying in short order to avoid having to lose a lengthy and properly spelled, punctuated, and capitalized reply.
This is usually about the time in your posts where we realize that you are not addressing anything we are talking about and are going off on a tangent instead.
So then, is that why words like gods, us and our are used in the bible?It's easy to think that there are just "some times" when life and death (even if it be physical life and death) are on the line and have some vague hope that if and when...or when you are found facing it, you acquit yourself in such a manner your conscience comes through unscathed.
I don't expect children to understand the above. I expect children to have so little concern of conscience in most everything that they are easily satisfied with colleagues, in whatever form in mind "men around them" take in their authority to relieve (or accuse)...to be their final adjudicator. This itself sounds so vainly philosophical to them, as to be coming from the place of ultimate impracticality. It appears so useless a preoccupation where all that seems of matter is...if you are able to convince (first yourself) then others, that you have "done the best you can", you'll be fine.
To children, only some things are of import. They really do believe (and I believe them)...some things don't matter at all. That some things are able to be suspended in a place of zero consequence in themselves, and only determined by themselves, while they themselves unknowingly pursue what to them rebounds as "good consequence" tirelessly. In everything. Relentlessly. Doggedly. Even, rabidly. Dear, and ignorant, children. Believing the doing of "A" leads to "B", thence to "C" to my desired outcome, inevitably. And practice only reinforces to them, as it will, and must, their mistaken sufficiency in understanding, and also likewise reinforces to them...some things can be held to no consequence at all...as I am yet able to (in this order of mine) achieve. No hindrance is yet adequately known. No sufficient stumble is yet experienced.
The seeing of children does not make one's self a man. Children may see other children even to an identifying in differentiation from what they see as men. And just as seeing children does not make them full grown, neither should seeing of man be mistaken for apprehension of what it means to be...a man. All it means is power of observation to a differentiation with no implication that "if I see a man I must therefore be a man". I see a man.
I see a man. I see a man casually described as squirrel. I know why children like to speak thus. It's king of the hill play. Do you think I am either not a child, nor ever have been? It's "I can yet hold something to zero consequence...without consequence".
But the man I see holds the knowledge of a stumbling. And in this even appears to some as stumbling, perhaps mumbling...and is far more easily accused of being devious...than seen. Because one has not yet experienced the stumbling in themselves. Their wings, to them, remain all intact, lovely, perfect. They love their own image. But, this man? Just too easy to deride, too easy to dismiss...why...it would almost be a crime...not to.
Such a man to me, speaks of things, and seeks to, from his understanding honestly with a knowing that is very easily and casually, and must be, dismissed by children...they are simply not made able to bear such knowing. It is the knowing that all things are of consequence and this even to the things children spend promiscuously and in great incontinence...their own words. This man has learned that it is not "sometimes" life and death are on the line, but always present. Children of course, simply cannot appreciate or see his, or this discipline...or that to which he has made himself subject in the learning of it. To them, he is able to be called "squirrel" with no regard.
Now, just because I see a man...does not make me a man at all, I can still play "king of the hill" with the best of them...even if often losing...I can play. But one might be wise to consider when playing in the arena that is touted for the "more intelligent" that you don't run off one by deriding, or calling him a squirrel, a very one whose presence may be the only thing that makes it so.
I see, and smell cheesiness, oh! yes I do!
Hey guys...is it always only "he who smelt it dealt it?"
When there are only two guys in the elevator, each absolutely knows who dealt it. But when the third walks in on the 4th floor...he'll see whether he's subject to subterfuge. And so will the one who dealt it...see who responds to subterfuge. I don't wonder why you guys hold so many side bars with one another to collectively judge a thing. And reinforce to one another, your standing in a matter. Or regard for a person.
There's maybe one "of you" who's a little embarrassed to see it done and rarely will engage in what is nothing else than open gossip. Like women deciding about the clothes on a third...or tacky shoes...or whatever. Not unlike...mean girls...at all. I'm just a child, but I have seen a few things...wives really don't like it when they discover their man has brought another woman home. Or is the "other woman".
If you really care about accuracy the Bible must really give you fits. Of course your nitpicking has far less to do with accuracy and much more to do with avoiding his point. Anything to avoid that. Squirrel!
