Are gluttons "real" christians?

660griz

Senior Member
Accuracy of expression is a distraction; I'll remember that.
You are not alone in your ease to distract.
The Expression was Clear. Especially when taken in context. OR, you could ask for clarification if you were confused. Or, you could answer considering both usage. Instead, you spout nonsense about making up my own translation. Seems like your goal is to avoid the discussion.
 
Very well explained and easily understood.
Thank you.

In your opinion, eliminating the worldly idols and earthly items that you describe above, could the bible verse in question be referring to other gods that live/exist/dwell in a realm beyond our universe? In short, is your god acknowledging other gods similar to him?


No, that would contradict the whole. "I AM WHO I AM”; “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’" and much, much more.



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.


That's not the physical author; your talking about his brother-in-law, and his neighbor down the street, and the guy who runs the fish market.





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.
I start short and expound upon as needed.
My method doesn't seem to avoid the "expound upon as needed".

I can't spend the rest of life expounding as needed, as this forum would require.
 

660griz

Senior Member
Atheists love Textural Criticism.
Not sure what you are talking about. Seems way more prevalent in religious circles with biblical scholars.
"Textual criticism is the discipline that guides scholars in establishing what the authors of the Bible wrote."
 
Thread starter #525
Sure the texts have changed over time, for a variety of reasons, some incidental and some nefarious. But I fail to see how accurate conclusions can be arrived at when all spiritual considerations are ignored while working with texts written by spiritual men concerning spiritual subjects. Makes no sense to this hillbilly.
Well I guess we would need a specific example to discuss. The one I linked to shows how Deuteronomy is different in the earlier Dead Sea Scrolls than in the later Masoretic text. It looks like a passage that described the nations of the world being divided among multiple gods was altered to hide the nod to polytheism from which your god originated. I’ll leave the spiritual conclusions to you. The conclusion I draw from the text is that the Hebrew god was once one of many gods these people believed were real and the Bible speaks of them as if they are real.
 
Thread starter #526
I don't know what the point was, when I saw that it was based on error I read it but didn't pay attention to what I was reading.
Squirrel! You should meet my Sweetie, she's the squirrel chaser. She'll make you dizzy going over the grocery list. If she were a squirrel dog she'd be down over the hill every time a leaf fell.
The point is the Bible attests to other gods. Funny that a single capitalization was enough to cause you to miss the point but you don’t have any problem with the many contradictions in the Bible.
 
Thread starter #527
“Sure the texts have changed over time, for a variety of reasons, some incidental and some nefarious.”

You say this so cavalierly. I’d like to know how you can reach accurate conclusions based on a text that no longer exists in original form. You read the KJV and treat it as if it is the authoritative message of the creator of the universe when we know it is based on altered copies of originals that are lost to history. You have no way of knowing all the changes that have been made over time nor have you even bothered to explore the changes we do know about. Accuracy is important to understanding the message even down to the capitalization of a single letter, right? Yet all you have are altered copies of a message that you have no way of knowing which parts are true to the original and which aren’t.
 
I am sorry. I see that I said "I'm not recommending" and gave the reason which applies to my ability to comprehend them (that does not mean that you can't do much better). I didn't know that you would take my "not recommending" to mean that I recommend that you "do not read". As I have seen, and heard, "not recommending" I understood it be a neutral stance, neither encouraging or discouraging; although I do recall it being used as a threat similar to " if you do I'll xxx" . I failed in my effort to be clear.

As for the umpteen books; I don't know the names, I haven't read them. It's not that I never read books about philosophers or theologians, but I shy away from them in preference to getting it from the original source. Those umpteen are easily found by putting the subject authors name in the "keyword" search of any major book seller. Such opinion pieces are probably available on line as well.




As I recall that refered to something that is available in every, or nearly every, Bible Commentary, of which there are hundreds. Why would you want one opinion when you have hundreds available at your fingertips. I believe that was my point. You can even tell them that they don't know what they are talking about, or that they give no consideration to x,y, or z. I do it all the time.
I am not engaged in conversation with any of them. I asked you because we are engaged in conversation and I wanted your opinion and reason(s) how you came to that opinion/conclusion/ line of thought.
 

WaltL1

Senior Member
Sure the texts have changed over time, for a variety of reasons, some incidental and some nefarious. But I fail to see how accurate conclusions can be arrived at when all spiritual considerations are ignored while working with texts written by spiritual men concerning spiritual subjects. Makes no sense to this hillbilly.
With spiritual agendas. ;)
 

Israel

Senior Member
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.
The eyes rolling back in our heads is unavoidable


So then, is that why words like gods, us and our are used in the bible?

The eyes rolling back in our heads is unavoidable
Ha! That's funny, good one...the visual is so...um...perfect.

I'll check your chart, no DNR, check your chest, no tattoo, (that's the realm of lawyers) and probably stay with you as long as I am allowed. I know there's no question in that, but I live where I see almost every observation has a question in it...am I to respond in having anything at all to do with what I am seeing? Is there something to be done? Nothing? If something is it my part, or another's? Even if a something looks like it's being demanded?

You presented a very funny snapshot. And really at this point I think the only sensible response is with what I do not infrequently tell my patients when they are about to undergo (in some trepidation) a relatively uncomfortable/painful awake procedure. I offer them the cocktail of drugs prescribed for sedation or ask if they would like to hear me talk about myself, my life story...both have the same consequence.

Without deviation all ask for the drugs.

Have you been talkin' to them? About what real pain can be?


As to your question about god/gods...the us and our, looks to me like Hummer has taken the field in that regard, but I do appreciate your inclusion of me as a possible responder.

Nevertheless I will ask you this. (You still awake?)

Ever had this experience in yourself, which if you had to give voice to to describe to another might take something of the form of "yep, I got up that morning and wondered what gun to take" or...of some form I asked myself, "what am I going to do?" Or in the woods had this form of thought when hearing rustling "is that a squirrel or a deer?" A zebra? No, no, I know we should first think horses when we hear hooves. At least so's I've heard...

I know the above only address a wondering, a questioning to a resolution...but they might just as easily take a declarative form..."I'm going to take the .270"

I also know that these thoughts don't always appear to us in sentences or words...but, you also wouldn't be the first or only man to ever "talk to himself"

Do we not all have, have we not all had some sort of awareness that within ourself we find a questioner bringing the thing in question to another "part" of ourself...and yet never think of ourself as "two...or three, or eight or five..."

I often am "observer" of my thoughts, or made aware that's what I am...perhaps it's that awareness making me aware...I always am...observer of thoughts. I think "elephant", I see elephant projected in image somewhere within...and I have been pressed to see a man in audience of himself...and wondered...am I the guy sitting and watching...am I the "screen" upon which image of elephant reflects to me in my inner sight...or am I the projectionist? Where am I, What am I? Who am I? How is this stuff working?

This doesn't answer your question, forgive me...but maybe helps you see the questions I ask "in one" (myself) that I would surely describe to you as "one" "I am Israel"...yet seems to have within even a recognition of operations of thought that have involved at least a questioner (who doesn't know...or yet know) and a part to which I make appeal for that resolution. "Is this right or left hand thread?"

Hey...stop snoring...I have song I'd like to sing you...


Which brings me to another very funny story...but not as funny as the image you projected into me. It looks something like this: downey.jpg
 
No, that would contradict the whole. "I AM WHO I AM”; “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’" and much, much more.





That's not the physical author; your talking about his brother-in-law, and his neighbor down the street, and the guy who runs the fish market.






My method doesn't seem to avoid the "expound upon as needed".

I can't spend the rest of life expounding as needed, as this forum would require.
I can say I AM WHO I AM and still mean me despite the other 7 billion people on the planet.
In a book full of contradictions what is one more?

I am talking about the physical authors who wrote about other gods.
I have no reason to talk about non physical authors.

Well, you are in here, and you do engage in conversation. Do you take the first answer or first statement by others as acceptable and move on or do you ask and expect them to expound upon if necessary for clarification?
You seem to spend a lot of time where you say you don not have time for. There would be less time spent if you answered the questions directly and to the point.
 

WaltL1

Senior Member
Ha! That's funny, good one...the visual is so...um...perfect.

I'll check your chart, no DNR, check your chest, no tattoo, (that's the realm of lawyers) and probably stay with you as long as I am allowed. I know there's no question in that, but I live where I see almost every observation has a question in it...am I to respond in having anything at all to do with what I am seeing? Is there something to be done? Nothing? If something is it my part, or another's? Even if a something looks like it's being demanded?

You presented a very funny snapshot. And really at this point I think the only sensible response is with what I do not infrequently tell my patients when they are about to undergo (in some trepidation) a relatively uncomfortable/painful awake procedure. I offer them the cocktail of drugs prescribed for sedation or ask if they would like to hear me talk about myself, my life story...both have the same consequence.

Without deviation all ask for the drugs.

Have you been talkin' to them? About what real pain can be?


As to your question about god/gods...the us and our, looks to me like Hummer has taken the field in that regard, but I do appreciate your inclusion of me as a possible responder.

Nevertheless I will ask you this. (You still awake?)

Ever had this experience in yourself, which if you had to give voice to to describe to another might take something of the form of "yep, I got up that morning and wondered what gun to take" or...of some form I asked myself, "what am I going to do?" Or in the woods had this form of thought when hearing rustling "is that a squirrel or a deer?" A zebra? No, no, I know we should first think horses when we hear hooves. At least so's I've heard...

I know the above only address a wondering, a questioning to a resolution...but they might just as easily take a declarative form..."I'm going to take the .270"

I also know that these thoughts don't always appear to us in sentences or words...but, you also wouldn't be the first or only man to ever "talk to himself"

Do we not all have, have we not all had some sort of awareness that within ourself we find a questioner bringing the thing in question to another "part" of ourself...and yet never think of ourself as "two...or three, or eight or five..."

I often am "observer" of my thoughts, or made aware that's what I am...perhaps it's that awareness making me aware...I always am...observer of thoughts. I think "elephant", I see elephant projected in image somewhere within...and I have been pressed to see a man in audience of himself...and wondered...am I the guy sitting and watching...am I the "screen" upon which image of elephant reflects to me in my inner sight...or am I the projectionist? Where am I, What am I? Who am I? How is this stuff working?

This doesn't answer your question, forgive me...but maybe helps you see the questions I ask "in one" (myself) that I would surely describe to you as "one" "I am Israel"...yet seems to have within even a recognition of operations of thought that have involved at least a questioner (who doesn't know...or yet know) and a part to which I make appeal for that resolution. "Is this right or left hand thread?"

Hey...stop snoring...I have song I'd like to sing you...


Which brings me to another very funny story...but not as funny as the image you projected into me. It looks something like this: View attachment 975737
That made me laugh so hard my dang belly hurts :rofl:
 
Ha! That's funny, good one...the visual is so...um...perfect.

I'll check your chart, no DNR, check your chest, no tattoo, (that's the realm of lawyers) and probably stay with you as long as I am allowed. I know there's no question in that, but I live where I see almost every observation has a question in it...am I to respond in having anything at all to do with what I am seeing? Is there something to be done? Nothing? If something is it my part, or another's? Even if a something looks like it's being demanded?

You presented a very funny snapshot. And really at this point I think the only sensible response is with what I do not infrequently tell my patients when they are about to undergo (in some trepidation) a relatively uncomfortable/painful awake procedure. I offer them the cocktail of drugs prescribed for sedation or ask if they would like to hear me talk about myself, my life story...both have the same consequence.

Without deviation all ask for the drugs.

Have you been talkin' to them? About what real pain can be?


As to your question about god/gods...the us and our, looks to me like Hummer has taken the field in that regard, but I do appreciate your inclusion of me as a possible responder.

Nevertheless I will ask you this. (You still awake?)

Ever had this experience in yourself, which if you had to give voice to to describe to another might take something of the form of "yep, I got up that morning and wondered what gun to take" or...of some form I asked myself, "what am I going to do?" Or in the woods had this form of thought when hearing rustling "is that a squirrel or a deer?" A zebra? No, no, I know we should first think horses when we hear hooves. At least so's I've heard...

I know the above only address a wondering, a questioning to a resolution...but they might just as easily take a declarative form..."I'm going to take the .270"

I also know that these thoughts don't always appear to us in sentences or words...but, you also wouldn't be the first or only man to ever "talk to himself"

Do we not all have, have we not all had some sort of awareness that within ourself we find a questioner bringing the thing in question to another "part" of ourself...and yet never think of ourself as "two...or three, or eight or five..."

I often am "observer" of my thoughts, or made aware that's what I am...perhaps it's that awareness making me aware...I always am...observer of thoughts. I think "elephant", I see elephant projected in image somewhere within...and I have been pressed to see a man in audience of himself...and wondered...am I the guy sitting and watching...am I the "screen" upon which image of elephant reflects to me in my inner sight...or am I the projectionist? Where am I, What am I? Who am I? How is this stuff working?

This doesn't answer your question, forgive me...but maybe helps you see the questions I ask "in one" (myself) that I would surely describe to you as "one" "I am Israel"...yet seems to have within even a recognition of operations of thought that have involved at least a questioner (who doesn't know...or yet know) and a part to which I make appeal for that resolution. "Is this right or left hand thread?"

Hey...stop snoring...I have song I'd like to sing you...


Which brings me to another very funny story...but not as funny as the image you projected into me. It looks something like this: View attachment 975737
So what does the plural of "gods" mean? And why are the words such as "us" used when your god is mentioning who is making humans and "our" when he mentioning the image humans will be in?

Hummer vaguely mentioned the trinity but does not want to get into it any further. In one post a while ago he mentioned about God not having hands, and the holy spirit isn't a human form (then again if we are made in their image, wouldn't we be in God-like form and not human form?)
So who is god referring to?
 
Last edited:
I'm deleting the off-topic for clarity, I hope.


In your opinion, eliminating the worldly idols and earthly items that you describe above, could the bible verse in question be referring to other gods that live/exist/dwell in a realm beyond our universe? In short, is your god acknowledging other gods similar to him?


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.
No, that would contradict the whole. "I AM WHO I AM”; “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’" and much, much more.


I can say I AM WHO I AM and still mean me despite the other 7 billion people on the planet.
Some of the more
All from the Torah (Deu.)

To you it was shown that you might know that the Lord, He is God; there is no other besides Him.
Know therefore today, and take it to your heart, that the Lord, He is God in heaven above and on the earth below; there is no other.
“Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord is one!
 

Israel

Senior Member
So what does the plural of "gods" mean? And why are the words such as "us" used when your god is mentioning who is making humans and "our" when he mentioning the image humans will be in?

Hummer vaguely mentioned the trinity but does not want to get into it any further. In one post a while ago he mentioned about God not having hands, and the holy spirit isn't a human form (then again if we are made in their image, wouldn't we be in God-like form and not human form?)
So who is god referring to?
Since you are asking me directly and I find none of Hummer's expositions lacking in directness and a right provocation toward what are to me, the "more" and right questions...even if they seem vaguely forming or "just more questions", I'm kinda feeling limited in response. (hey, is that a "miracle?")

I will say this to you though brother, a thing I don't doubt you have heard from me as perhaps tedious beating of drum but which to me remains the glorious rhythms of heaven...Jesus Christ is key. I must "think" in no other way for understanding even if I be told I am totally bereft of it. There's too much for me to say about this, but that is what I had hoped to touch when speaking of a philosophy, a manner of thought (but to me so much more) to hold thought about all things, especially every word one may find in the Bible, to a discipline.

I appreciate that, despite what may appear between us, you yet find me somehow worthy of appeal for questioning.
 
I'm deleting the off-topic for clarity, I hope.








Some of the more
All from the Torah (Deu.)
Yes. I agree but for a different reason.
The author of Deut is saying that particular god is the one and only god for the people of Israel.
 
Since you are asking me directly and I find none of Hummer's expositions lacking in directness and a right provocation toward what are to me, the "more" and right questions...even if they seem vaguely forming or "just more questions", I'm kinda feeling limited in response. (hey, is that a "miracle?")

I will say this to you though brother, a thing I don't doubt you have heard from me as perhaps tedious beating of drum but which to me remains the glorious rhythms of heaven...Jesus Christ is key. I must "think" in no other way for understanding even if I be told I am totally bereft of it. There's too much for me to say about this, but that is what I had hoped to touch when speaking of a philosophy, a manner of thought (but to me so much more) to hold thought about all things, especially every word one may find in the Bible, to a discipline.

I appreciate that, despite what may appear between us, you yet find me somehow worthy of appeal for questioning.
Jesus Christ was not part of the Torah. In the Torah the Israelites had one god that chose them. Their god did not need to make a version 2.0 in order to correct the previous mistakes it made. Their god does not manifest itself in human form. In the Torah they are instructed to wait for the son of god.
In the bible it says the son of god has arrived.
The new Testament does not fulfill the Torah.
And the reason I am saying all that is because the Deuteronomy verses used above by Hummer do speak of one god, the one and only god for the Hebrews. If the OT is to be used then it should be used correctly. One god not one god divided into different parts.

Here is a small introduction to the differences, go to https://classroom.synonym.com/jewish-beliefs-on-the-new-testament-12086664.html for the rest.
The pope prays at the Wailing Wall, one of Judaism's holiest sites.
"Why don't Jews believe in the New Testament?" many Christians ask. "After all it includes the Old Testament." That is exactly the problem. To Jews, there is no Old Testament, so there can be no New Testament. There is the Hebrew Bible (Torah) and the Christian Bible (the gospels). One contains the law of Moses; the other the law of Christ. One is considered the immutable word of God; the other claims to add to and alter his word. Perhaps, most importantly, one holds hope for the coming of the Messiah (Mashiach) while the other claims that Christ was the Messiah who died for mankind's sins.


The Torah vs. the Gospels
The Torah teaches that God is one, indivisible, all-powerful. It continues that God is incorporeal, that is, without a body and that he does not manifest himself in the form of a human being. The Torah also teaches that mankind is born pure and without sin but that he has freewill to do good or evil. The basic lessons of the Gospels, on the other hand, is that God brought himself down from the heavens in the form of a man, that man is inherently evil, and that Jesus Christ, because of original sin, died on the cross to save mankind.
 
Jesus Christ was not part of the Torah. In the Torah the Israelites had one god that chose them. Their god did not need to make a version 2.0 in order to correct the previous mistakes it made. Their god does not manifest itself in human form. In the Torah they are instructed to wait for the son of god.
In the bible it says the son of god has arrived.
The new Testament does not fulfill the Torah.
And the reason I am saying all that is because the Deuteronomy verses used above by Hummer do speak of one god, the one and only god for the Hebrews. If the OT is to be used then it should be used correctly. One god not one god divided into different parts.

Here is a small introduction to the differences, go to https://classroom.synonym.com/jewish-beliefs-on-the-new-testament-12086664.html for the rest.
The pope prays at the Wailing Wall, one of Judaism's holiest sites.
"Why don't Jews believe in the New Testament?" many Christians ask. "After all it includes the Old Testament." That is exactly the problem. To Jews, there is no Old Testament, so there can be no New Testament. There is the Hebrew Bible (Torah) and the Christian Bible (the gospels). One contains the law of Moses; the other the law of Christ. One is considered the immutable word of God; the other claims to add to and alter his word. Perhaps, most importantly, one holds hope for the coming of the Messiah (Mashiach) while the other claims that Christ was the Messiah who died for mankind's sins.


The Torah vs. the Gospels
The Torah teaches that God is one, indivisible, all-powerful. It continues that God is incorporeal, that is, without a body and that he does not manifest himself in the form of a human being. The Torah also teaches that mankind is born pure and without sin but that he has freewill to do good or evil. The basic lessons of the Gospels, on the other hand, is that God brought himself down from the heavens in the form of a man, that man is inherently evil, and that Jesus Christ, because of original sin, died on the cross to save mankind.
Just sat down at this blackhole of knowledge, whose only salvation is that it has readily available copies of real works, read your post, read you link, and said to my self "What a crock". Now I'm going to go into the other room to see if Thomas and Friends is on. Sometime later I may, or may not, come back to explain.
 
Top