Gospel of Thomas; Really?

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Chill out Animus - I think that Glostic's youtube video needs to be considered - and maybe do go into scientific links proving (scientifically, anyway) about witnesses.

If you think being an enlightened being means that you are no longer subject of human folly, then I'm skeptical of your version of enlightenment.

I actually agree with that description of enlightenment. I just don't think that Glostic is as enlightened as he thinks that he is.

Glos - I'll get back to your response later. Again, that's a lot of typing.

P.S. Glostic - I don't really think that is you in the youtube video. That statement was another example of my sense of humor.

[Talking Ass]

If you think being an enlightened being means that you are no longer subject of human folly, then I'm skeptical of your version of enlightenment.

David once said that with enlightenment 'you automatically do God's will'. But if as you say with enlightenment one is still subject to human folly, I am not exactly sure what the value of it is? If enlightenment is a cure for delusional thinking but one is still subject to delusion in the form of human folly, it causes one to reconsider enlightenment.

Glostik:

All you seem to be doing is articulating the Evangelical Christian interpretation of the Gospels. You seem to want only to put forward the doctrine in its entirety, in the face of which one can only accept or reject. That is a rigid position. Christian doctrine, at least in the present, is pretty dominated by people who have this 'will', the will to see it only one way. I suggest it is far more interesting, far more relevant, and much harder, for an individual to see doctrinal tenets from different angles. To see the way that an idea (or a 'fact') might function in a far looser way, in reality. For example, the idea of resurrection as a psychological constant, and the story of Christ as a representation of that constant. Also, most Christians tend to have a fixed idea of what the Holy Spirit is, and they claim it as their own. But what if it were in fact a very different 'thing' than they suppose and claim? What if it had a universal dimension?

We can close down around doctrine or open up with allegory and allusion.

[Animus]

As far as I know there are no experiments with "enlightened" beings. Of course, we'd have to take their word on it that they were enlightened.

Dan said in the video entitled "Enlightenment" that "delusions do not arise" in the enlightened mind. I think this is folly, I think a more accurate statement would entail that the enlightened mind recognizes delusions within itself and doesn't give credence to them.

There are experiments done with "expert witnesses" wherein the experts fail to correctly identify a mock perpetrator immediately after the staged incident. What tends to happen, particularly involving weaponry, is people fixate on the weapon and pay little attention to the details of the perps appearance, even "experts".

Another process which occurs naturally in the mind/brain is "confabulation", this is where the brain takes fragmentary information and "fills-in" the missing pieces. This is a necessary process, as I'm sure is quite obvious, all "things" as they were, are constructed by the brain from fragmentary stimuli. The problem - outside of everyday delusion - is that the brain is capable of misrepresenting what it has actually been privy to. Such that, a witness line-up often has people convinced one of the men/women in the line-up is "definitely the person I saw" when in reality they are stand-ins and the real perp is never identified as the perp by the witness.

It really just comes down to how the human brain works, the human visual system.

http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20 ... versky.htm

http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Category:Vision

http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Con ... ligence%29

[Robert]

We can close down around doctrine or open up with allegory and allusion.

Nicely put.

"In the beginning was the Word", for example.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Animus, good post. But aren't you just supporting Dan's case by pointing out how easily the mind is tricked when it comes to establishing 'fact' or constructing a model to work with? Truth seems not to be a natural aim of our brain function. It's more about "anything that does the job" really, and only in the arbitrary context of survival and continuation of genes.

So when delusions do not arise, it's like the 'world' doesn't arise, not as absolute reality. So the delusion involved is about the nature of reality, not about the particular contents or state of it. One could perhaps say it's about one very unique and specific category, a form of metaphysics that plays a part with enlightenment. And yet still it's also the root of where all else is constructed upon.

This way delusions, the world, still arise but delusion about the nature of this arising doesn't occur. It's supposed to be a big deal :)

[Animus]

We can close down around doctrine or open up with allegory and allusion.

Nicely put.

"In the beginning was the Word", for example.

kk, try this out.

The etymological roots of the "Word" is commonly held to be the Greek word "Logos". The Greek word "Logos" translates to "word, speech, discourse," also "reason," [1].

At first, I was perplexed, how can "word, speech" and "reason" be represented by the same symbol, what commonality exists between them?

Then it dawned on me, early cognitive theorists had hypothesized that logic/reason was co-dependant with speech, that speech arises co-dependantly with reason, and thus the two are effectively the same thing.

I took this a step further, surmizing that logic or reason was a reflection of the causal processing inherent in the "outer" world. Such that, logic and reason are identical to causation in their function, but not their appearance.

At this point, I was interested to discover that the confabulation theory of computational neuroscience holds that 'movement' of the brain constitutes 'thought'. That is, the causal process playing out in the brain, causing 'movement' within the cells (activation, potentiation, etc..) is thought. [2]

Back to "the Word", we can now see the illusory nature of this symbol, it can refer to "logic, reason, speech, discourse, causation, movement, etc...", indeed the differences between these is a matter of appearances.

1. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?sea ... hmode=none
2. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Con ... ligence%29

[Animus]

Animus, good post. But aren't you just supporting Dan's case by pointing out how easily the mind is tricked when it comes to establishing 'fact' or constructing a model to work with? Truth seems not to be a natural aim of our brain function. It's more about "anything that does the job" really, and only in the arbitrary context of survival and continuation of genes.

So when delusions do not arise, it's like the 'world' doesn't arise, not as absolute reality. So the delusion involved is about the nature of reality, not about the particular contents or state of it. One could perhaps say it's about one very unique and specific category, a form of metaphysics that plays a part with enlightenment. And yet still it's also the root of where all else is constructed upon.

This way delusions, the world, still arise but delusion about the nature of this arising doesn't occur. It's supposed to be a big deal :)

I see what you are saying, I don't think Dan was clear about that, or it wasn't clear to me, but I see your point.

[Talking Ass]

8 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,"
declares the LORD.

9 "As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.

10 As the rain and the snow
come down from heaven,
and do not return to it
without watering the earth
and making it bud and flourish,
so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater,

11 So is my word that goes out from my mouth:
It will not return to me empty,
but will accomplish what I desire
and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.
_________________________________________________________

Robert, there is this interesting part of Isaiah (55) which has a very much more open sense of what this 'word' is doing. There is also, apparently, some humility that the purpose or purposes of this 'will' that is in operation, is something beyond the ken of man. No one gets to claim it as personal property, and even perhaps to interpret it.

Isaiah, in this passage, permits a far wider understanding, extending beyond limited Christian exegesis.

[Glostik91]

Thats not really relevant. You aren't going to escape the pitfalls of visual fixation and confabulation by enlightenment. If you think being an enlightened being means that you are no longer subject of human folly, then I'm skeptical of your version of enlightenment. Just a heads up, I have no attachment to any scripture, so it really doesn't mean that much to me by itself. However, I'd be interested in seeing double-blind experiments confirming that enlightenment frees people from human folly, particularly confabulation, the processes of representation (impossible to escape ever) and fixation.

This is why I said earlier that one who is enlightened can at times be taken in by an illusion. The enlightened person does not generate this illusion from within, but it is pushed upon them and sometimes they can accept it to be true. In this case I merely have to take John at his word. John says that what he writes about is true and through this he claims total enlightenment free from all delusion and illusion. That is why I believe it is reasonable to accept his telling of Jesus.

[Animus]

Thats not really relevant. You aren't going to escape the pitfalls of visual fixation and confabulation by enlightenment. If you think being an enlightened being means that you are no longer subject of human folly, then I'm skeptical of your version of enlightenment. Just a heads up, I have no attachment to any scripture, so it really doesn't mean that much to me by itself. However, I'd be interested in seeing double-blind experiments confirming that enlightenment frees people from human folly, particularly confabulation, the processes of representation (impossible to escape ever) and fixation.

This is why I said earlier that one who is enlightened can at times be taken in by an illusion. The enlightened person does not generate this illusion from within, but it is pushed upon them and sometimes they can accept it to be true. In this case I merely have to take John at his word. John says that what he writes about is true and through this he claims total enlightenment free from all delusion and illusion. That is why I believe it is reasonable to accept his telling of Jesus.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that is a fallacy. I would call it; argument ad vercundiam (appeal to authority) or it could be simply an appeal to a baseless assumption ("I merely have to take John at his word") or it could be circular logic; John is right because he said he is right.

Either way, the method by which you drew your conclusion is crap.

[Glostik91]

Chill out Animus - I think that Glostic's youtube video needs to be considered - and maybe do go into scientific links proving (scientifically, anyway) about witnesses.

Unbelievable, I have only one answer for that.

All reasoning is circular. ;)

I actually agree with that description of enlightenment. I just don't think that Glostic is as enlightened as he thinks that he is.

Enlighten me then.

[Glostik91]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that is a fallacy. I would call it; argument ad vercundiam (appeal to authority) or it could be simply an appeal to a baseless assumption ("I merely have to take John at his word") or it could be circular logic; John is right because he said he is right.

Either way, the method by which you drew your conclusion is crap.

Its circular because all reasoning is circular in nature.

[Talking Ass]

[These fellows who write here about 'enlightenment' have NO IDEA what they are talking about. It is important to clearly see this. It is a game they play among themselves and with others who oppose them: intergallactic internet battles, narcissistic videos, etc. This does not at all negate some of the ideas of the so-called enlightened (from Hindu or Eastern lore) but it is something you MUST know in your time here. No one on this planet really has a clear idea how to live and the best way of conducting themselves, or how to organize perception.]

[Animus]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that is a fallacy. I would call it; argument ad vercundiam (appeal to authority) or it could be simply an appeal to a baseless assumption ("I merely have to take John at his word") or it could be circular logic; John is right because he said he is right.

Either way, the method by which you drew your conclusion is crap.

Its circular because all reasoning is circular in nature.

Nope.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

If anything, that proves it.

Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus

Sounds to me like he's saying that the first generation(s) of story tellers were either eyewitnesses to what he believed happened or people who had dedicated their lives to the retelling of the stories, then many from the next generation(s) of storytellers tried to write down these stories in an orderly fashion, so he first carefully reviewed whatever he could, and then decided to write his own story.

That's a short telephone game.

Not really, especially for such a large quantity of text.The minimum would be 3-4 generations, considering that the first generation includes people who were not witnesses themselves, but people who merely devoutly told a story told to them - and who knows how many generations of storytellers were actually there since the generations themselves were clumped into 3 groups. Earlier in the Bible, the begats were specified for quite some length of generations, so why in this one case would the Bible suddenly not specify where the information came from? Do you think that the teller of the story could remember all the information in Luke, but could not remember a mere 3 generations of where this information came from?

If an eyewitness is good enough for a courtroom then I think its good enough for the book of Luke.

The book of Luke, by its own admission, is not telling the story of an eyewitness. This is at best 3rd hand information - which, in a courtroom, is called hear-say, and is not admissible.

As for the "servants of the word" this is most likely the author of Mark, and the Q document.

They may well be included, but even if they are THE servants of the word, I don't see how that is relevant to the argument.

What I'm suggesting is that Thomas was written by a disciple right after Jesus' ascension. This gospel was used by Matthew and Luke. After a few decades Gnosticism began growing in popularity among the young Christians. As the churches began to convert they took what they used as a Bible (Q document) and changed a few verses to help express their beliefs. They began to spread their newer gospel to other churches which then added some verses that expressed their beliefs. We must also take into account Cyril of Jerusalem's account of the Gospel of Thomas in that it was written by Thomas a disciple of Manes who was quite the heretic. I believe that this Thomas probably took what was the modified Q document and created what it is today as the gospel of Thomas, giving it his name. So the gospel of Thomas before it was the gospel of Thomas was for the most part reliable. (bold added)

Maybe the problem here is that I do not understand where you get the idea that there were 2 versions of Thomas. Starting at the bolded "I believe" - what is that belief based on?

Logic is a tool that points to ultimate truth. The Bible is a tool that points to ultimate truth, but the Bible is different from logic in that it comes directly from the mouth of God.

If you're saying that the mouth of God is illogical, the way you’re making it sound, I'll have to agree with you.

How is Jesus (mouth of God) illogical?

I'm not saying that Jesus is illogical. I am saying that you are making Jesus sound illogical. More specifically, you are using the circular reasoning fallacy.

Only when logic is used by flawless beings is it flawless. When logic is used by flawed beings then their logic is indeed flawed.

I think that we are talking about 2 different things. Let's try an analogy: Math is flawless. Math can be used by flawed human beings, but sometimes humans make mathematical errors, and at those times, it can be said that their math is wrong. That does not make math itself wrong. It also does not mean that humans can never, ever use math all by themselves and use it correctly. People regularly make change at flea markets and vegetable stands without first consulting a math book for those specific problems.

It is impossible to learn logic when one is holding on to sin (delusion)

The point of learning logic is to rid one's self of delusion. Logic helps show the difference between illusion and reality, and when the truth is contrasted with the lie, a person has a better chance of letting go of delusion.

The biblical/Q/etc. stories that were told before the Bible was written were excellent at introducing reason to backwater shepherds and farmers who might never have been exposed to such concepts any other way. These stories are still great tools for prodding people to think.

Ever gone back and watched a kiddie movie from Disney, or rewatched Scooby Doo for the first time since childhood and saw it in a whole different way than you saw it as a child? The Bible also has many levels to appeal to minds as they mature.

Just answering something by being able to quote by book and verse is not the kind of prompting that Jesus tried to inspire. I can not tell you where in the Bible that Jesus told his followers to think for themselves, but I know that it's in there.

The Bible is a better tool because it shows how to cleanse oneself from sin. (etc, etc, preachy sounding stuff)
No matter how logical my arguments are, if they are from the flesh they will never convince you. (etc, etc...more preachy stuff)

None of what you gave me in that paragraph was logical. It was just preachy "because the Bible says so" demands that the reader agree with you.

Logic deals with knowledge not belief. A short definition of Knowledge is a belief in something true.

There is nothing wrong with believing in that which is true.

Jesus says that you must believe in him to receive eternal life, not know him.

This statement sounds like you are professing that the Bible has something against people knowing Jesus.

To believe means to hold a conviction that something is true without proof that it is true indeed.

And belief in something untrue is a delusion.

When I read the Larkin Debate I see David Quinn holding his own logic as the highest authority. Jesus spoke about men such as these in John 9:41. Eternal Life or the knowledge of God does not come from knowing oneself because such a knowledge produces a belief of a self-starting enlightenment. In their claims of sight they become blind. Enlightenment only comes from God, and Jesus time and time again says God sent him. God sent Jesus into the world to save it. He saves the world from sin (delusions) by teaching against sin and ultimately sacrificing his life so that many may live. (John 12:24 and John 11:49-52)

I'll let David speak for himself, but since we are a part of God, knowing ourselves is knowing a part of God.

I can only report from what I hear God say through the Word. How do we know God? By (in my case) reading and believing Jesus who came from God. The law is merely an expression of who God is. Its an expression God's perfection and justice. The greatest commandment comes from Jesus which is to love the Lord God. The next commandment is to love our neighbors. Unfortunately, a lot of Christians tend to reverse the order of importance which should never happen. You ask my opinion, but my opinion is the same as God's who revealed his opinion through Jeremiah. Idolatry is the greatest sin in that wherever you find sin you find idolatry. No matter the sin, it will always involve idolatry. Idolatry is the opposite of loving God. To love God is to sacrifice yourself to Him. Idolatry is to sacrifice yourself to another. Jeremiah 2:13 illustrates this well. Israel declines the love of God which is a sin and has created their own cisterns for water; cisterns which don't even work right.

You quote and relate such good stuff, but just "reporting" is not thinking. You do realize that you are on a philosophy website, right?

God speaks through those that are his children. God no longer speaks through the Messiah because the Messiah is not here. Jesus gave us a helper who is the Holy Spirit of Truth. (John 16:13) The Father works through the Spirit to reveal what the Father has for his children. Your right in that the voice of God is logic, but only logic that comes from one who has eternal Life, because it is through believing in Jesus that you can receive the Holy Spirit of Truth. That is why I say I use logic through the lens of the Bible. We must also realize that throughout all of this God was only using us for his own glory. Not that his children are more important than those who are not his children because those who are not God's children will glorify God in a different way than God's children have glorified Him. God choosing to work through us does not mean we should develop any ego about it. Even though God chose his children out of the world his children are not important. Only God is important. Humanity's only reason of existing is to glorify God.

I can agree that only by using logic through the lens of Truth can logic be worth anything.

An eye-witness isn't good enough for a court room, it's rather circumstantial evidence. It's been demonstrated that witnesses are actually bad evidence. This is for various reasons - which I won't get into - in the neursocience of perception.

John 19:35 says: The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe.

John 21:24 says: This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.

To be enlightened is to be free from delusion. The Spirit enlightens us to the truth.

John 14:26 says: But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

Therefore I believe it is reasonable to trust John in his telling of Jesus.

You believe that it is reasonable to trust John because John said so. That is exactly circular reasoning.

Enlighten me then.

I'm trying.

[Glostik91]

Glostik:

All you seem to be doing is articulating the Evangelical Christian interpretation of the Gospels. You seem to want only to put forward the doctrine in its entirety, in the face of which one can only accept or reject. That is a rigid position. Christian doctrine, at least in the present, is pretty dominated by people who have this 'will', the will to see it only one way. I suggest it is far more interesting, far more relevant, and much harder, for an individual to see doctrinal tenets from different angles. To see the way that an idea (or a 'fact') might function in a far looser way, in reality. For example, the idea of resurrection as a psychological constant, and the story of Christ as a representation of that constant. Also, most Christians tend to have a fixed idea of what the Holy Spirit is, and they claim it as their own. But what if it were in fact a very different 'thing' than they suppose and claim? What if it had a universal dimension?

We can close down around doctrine or open up with allegory and allusion.

I wouldn't say I'm articulating the Evangelical Christian interpretation of the Gospels because it doesn't just belong to the Evangelicals. It is an interpretation using exegesis which is the most logical interpretation. When an author of the Bible wrote their book they had one meaning in mind. It is our job to figure out what that meaning is. When I say the word pancake what comes to your mind? Does a zebra come to your mind? Of course not. A zebra only came to your mind when I said the word zebra. Do you think I meant a zebra when I said the word pancake? Most likely no. Therefore, it is logical to assume that when I said pancake I meant a light, fluffy, sugary, and round piece of bread that one would eat for breakfast. Also, I agree that most Christians have a fixed impression of what the Holy Spirit is, and a lot of them are wrong. I believe that the state of enlightenment is synonymous with having the Holy Spirit. While I agree it is interesting to see how a passage of scripture can allude to something else we must remember this wasn't the intent of the author and therefore probably isn't anything more than a coincidence. I would be happy to open up the Bible to allegory as long as we agree that what we come up with isn't necessarily true.

[Animus]

The bible refers to itself as allegory plenty of times.

Proverbs 1
1 The proverbs of Solomon son of David, king of Israel:
2 for attaining wisdom and discipline;
for understanding words of insight;

3 for acquiring a disciplined and prudent life,
doing what is right and just and fair;

4 for giving prudence to the simple,
knowledge and discretion to the young-

5 let the wise listen and add to their learning,
and let the discerning get guidance-

6 for understanding proverbs and parables,
the sayings and riddles of the wise.

7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge,
but fools [a] despise wisdom and discipline.

[Talking Ass]

Glostik,

I think if you look into it you will find that Southern Evangelical Christianity has had a profound reach, and I think that what you are expressing is that view, more or less. They pretty much say what you say. I do understand what you mean, though. I think one can discover and uncover (and practice) an 'original Christianity', a Pauline Christianity. I know people who try to do that, and who do do it. (Where I live in Colombia there is a Church like that---very nice people---and that is their endeavor: to take their Christian practice right out of the Gospels and the Epistles).

(There are many other branches of Christianity that are not so literalist).

But here comes the difficult part. The way of seeing and interpreting the world at that time was extraordinarily different than the time we now live in. The whole platform for understanding the world has changed, and many aspects of Christian belief have been severly challenged by the modern understanding, etc. You refer to a literalism (with your 'Can a zebra be anything but a zebra', that may only be a donkey in disguise), so I would ask you if you are also a strict Creationist? You likely see the difficulties in a literalist approach, since the world was not created in '7 days', but some take it literally so. There are many levels of belief like that that MUST be brought up to date (if the religion is going to be viable). In short, it doesn't work and there is so very much we have to reconsider, think through all over again. There are branches of authentic Christianity that do this, and they understand there is a long tradition of modernizing beliefs as they move through time.

Please don't interpret this as a challenge to have that conversation with me. I am not interested at all. I don't have the time. You have your own trajectory in your learning-curve.

We can go back in time, regressively, and like some anti-modern cult shut out all that doesn't agree with our religious doctrine, or we can go forward and combine doctrine with an understanding of the present and what the present means.

That is my position. I simply cannot bear regressive belief systems, though I have many good reasons to defend what I consider a very exalted 'essence' within Christianity. (And have defended on this forum).

[Glostik91]

TA

You suggested that a zebra could be a donkey in disguise. This, of course, leads down a bad road. With this you can only have two outcomes. Either the apostles who wrote the Bible were under illusion and therefore what they wrote in the Bible is born out of delusion, or God decided to deceive us when Jesus spoke about the Father. If someone says the Bible isn't relevant for today then the Bible isn't objective truth but subjective to time and individuals. You ask me if I am a strict Creationist. I am, but I am not a young earth creationist. I tend to be agnostic about the details but I do accept a literal interpretation of the creation accounts in the Bible. There are old earth creationists who interpret the Bible literally. http://answersincreation.org/interpret.htm Although I don't agree with everything they say, they do make several good points when they interpret the Bible. Romans 1:20 means science and the Bible should be treated as equals, in that we need to look at science through the lens of the Bible and vice versa. There is concrete proof that the earth is extremely old, up to 4.5 billion years. So instead of fighting this scientific fact we should rather embrace it. Although I think our dating methods cannot be very accurate beyond 25000 years I do believe the enormous amount of time it reads couldn't be accidental. When you say "We can go back in time, regressively, and like some anti-modern cult shut out all that doesn't agree with our religious doctrine" I must say that I do not totally agree with this. I am open to different yet more relevant interpretations of the Bible as long as we don't eisegete the Bible. Also, we shouldn't just accept someone who claims to have divine revelation when their "revelation" doesn't jive with Jesus' teachings. (Mark 9:40) When I say eisegete I mean our own preconceived ideas. This doesn't include science because scientific facts are not our own ideas but God's ideas.

[Talking Ass]

Must you harp on that one humiliating point? That's ME in the photo. It is I who had to debase myself with the zebra get-up just to make a few extra dollars. And what started as a simple street-gig for tourists has now turned into me being a sex-worker in Tijuana nightclubs! Whose irony is it---Satan's or God's---that the place is called 'Taberna Antioquia', Antioch Tavern? I pray every day that Paul and disciples would charge into town and put an end to the debasement I suffer at the hands of these hotblooded Mexican harlots! It isn't pretty what I have to go through in my performances, and because you are innocent, pious and young, I won't go into details.
_________________________________________________________

(You didn't, and likely cannot, understand what I tried to communicate in my post. I know that, and I accept it.)
_________________________________________________________

WARNING! Do NOT. I repeat, DO NOT click this link! (Unless you are wicked beyond redemption!)
_________________________________________________________

This one is entirely safe.

[Glostik91]

Its circular because all reasoning is circular in nature.

Nope.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

I would suggest reading this http://members.optushome.com.au/davidqu ... ebate.html

[Glostik91]

Must you harp on that one humiliating point? That's ME in the photo. It is I who had to debase myself with the zebra get-up just to make a few extra dollars. And what started as a simple street-gig for tourists has now turned into me being a sex-worker in Tijuana nightclubs! Whose irony is it---Satan's or God's---that the place is called 'Taberna Antioquia', Antioch Tavern? I pray every day that Paul and disciples would charge into town and put an end to the debasement I suffer at the hands of these hotblooded Mexican harlots! It isn't pretty what I have to go through in my performances, and because you are innocent, pious and young, I won't go into details.
_________________________________________________________

(You didn't, and likely cannot, understand what I tried to communicate in my post. I know that, and I accept it.)
_________________________________________________________

WARNING! Do NOT. I repeat, DO NOT click this link! (Unless you are wicked beyond redemption!)
_________________________________________________________

This one is entirely safe.

I think your saying the emergent church is the zebra and the original church is the donkey. Through this you are implying that the emergent church is misinterpreting the Bible because of their postmodern influences. Of course your comment could mean an infinite number of reasons seeing as the words you use could be taken in an entirely different way using entirely different definitions. I am not a member of the emergent church. If you would like to see some of my beliefs then please take look at my church's website. http://www.faithbaptistcambridge.com/ I agree with pretty much everything under the beliefs section. And that comment about my youth; I could say the same thing about you.

[Talking Ass]

Sorry for the confusion. My character, the Talking Ass, has to do debasing things to survive. He has lofty aspirations, he dreams big, but all his dreams crumble because he has been cursed with a course, asses body. Still, that does not get him down. He stands in his stall, noshing his victuals, he walks out into the field to graze and admire the pretty little flowers, and sometimes he takes long walks in the warm summer nights where sea-breezes are laden with the sweet smell of pine sap and the nightingales warble. He keeps his lyrical spirits up, somehow, and yet is aware that the tomb stands before him. He seems to know that transcendence is often only achieved in the imagination of man, because we really have no idea at all of what came before or what comes after; we live our lives in suspense, so to speak, suspended between the darkness of birth and of death, between two poles of uncertainty.

The Emerging Church, and any doctrine or activity or movement within the mind and soul that engages with the essence of Christianity, that brings it back from the tomb, from a dreary ghetto-grave of circular thinking, is what he is after. All he seems able to do is appreciate the personalism of Jesus Christ, and he says that where one sees personalism one sees the Spirit. "Heavy dungeon-doctrine is for the carrion-birds", he once said portentiously.

"Let them fight over the dead, and may the dead consume the dead, amen".

The Talking Ass says that it is a mis-designation to refer to the Emerging Church movement as 'postmodern'. It is too tempting a slur. He says that we are in Late Modernism and that 'post-modernism' is rhetorical self-deception on one hand and intentional obfuscation on the other.

He repeats that we have to boldly face both the present and the future with a willingness to serve and trust in the Divine Being that has given us life. We have to reinterpret and re-explain God with fearless resolve. If it is excruciatingly difficult, it is likely we are on the right path.

Did I mention he is an afficionado of deep-sea diving as well as an amature theologian? Here, click to see the picture.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

TA, you go deeply into what your persona believes, but this is a philosophy forum - a philosophy forum dedicated to Truth. We are here to explore true beliefs. What about you and your beliefs?

What you bring up is a reason that QRS encourage people to use their real names, and what others have discovered after changing from their screen names to their real names. You might find this thread of interest.

[Talking Ass]

I agree with Talking Ass, mostly. I may in fact have been putting some of my words in his mouth, at least in respect to the above.

The pursuit of 'truth' is more, I think, about asserting truth claims, and is substantially different than truly being interested in the 'true'. It is a wonderful thing to say 'I am interested in the Truth', but what usually happens, at least in my experience, is that our 'truth claims' get in the way of the possibility of understanding truth. It is like a vicious circle which, in truth, I don't know how to solve.

Thanks for the link. I'll look at it later.