Maybe SRQ did not degrade as much as I thought...
- From: David <pchristainsen@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 10:30:44 -0700
On Aug 28, 12:52 pm, Whiskers <catwhee...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2007-08-28, David <pchristain...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Aug 28, 9:30 am, Whiskers <catwhee...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
...
.-----<http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2014&version=31>
| [...]
|
| 6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes
| to the Father except through me.
...
I said "integrate the teaching of the Bhagavad Gita with my Christian
faith",
philosophically.
Do you think this is an easy achievement? I assure you it was
extremely difficult.
For starters, you yourself do not show you understand correctly -
the teaching of the Bhagavad Gita
my Christian faith as influenced profoundly by Dr. Barbara Thiering
---
Just as a brief teaser - do you understand what Jesus meant by
using the term "Father"?
Answer - Jesus meant a specific human being - a Sadducee priest - by
the name
of Jonathan Annas.
---
That is not any sort of Christian faith, that is either nonsense or
blasphemy to any Christian. You are following your own interpretation of
Thiering's ideas; that may be a religion, but it is not Christian.
Do you think Jesus was being exclusive?
Clearly he was not.
Was Jesus strictly correct in what he said,
I believe what he said. You ask for knowledge, but all we have is belief
or faith in that matter.
once one understands Jesus meant a specific priest 2000 years
ago?
Now you are perverting the words of Jesus, and following Thiering's wild
ideas. In other words, you follow Thiering instead of Jesus.
Is Jesus Christ "the way and the truth and the life" for modern
Christians?
Absolutely. And by his own words, for everyone else too. Even you, even
if you believe otherwise.
For myself I long ago answered these questions to my satisfaction.
You seem to have rejected the Jesus of the Bible and chosen Barbara
Thiering instead.
Can you
answer them to your satisfaction?
Yes; see above.
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
Clearly, we differ but it was the starting point of conversation
between us.
Let me clear up a potential misunderstanding. I do not PUSH ideas on
SRQ;
I EXPOSE them. Some ideas are good; some are bad. Were there a true
SRQ
group discussion of some, the weeding out process would improve the
chances of getting at the truth.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- I strongly object to how much SRQ has degraded
- From: David
- Re: I strongly object to how much SRQ has degraded
- From: John
- Re: I strongly object to how much SRQ has degraded
- From: David
- Re: I strongly object to how much SRQ has degraded
- From: Yowie
- Re: I strongly object to how much SRQ has degraded
- From: David
- Re: I strongly object to how much SRQ has degraded
- From: Yowie
- Re: I strongly object to how much SRQ has degraded
- From: David
- Re: I strongly object to how much SRQ has degraded
- From: Whiskers
- Re: I strongly object to how much SRQ has degraded
- From: David
- Re: I strongly object to how much SRQ has degraded
- From: Whiskers
- I strongly object to how much SRQ has degraded
- Prev by Date: Re: I strongly object to how much SRQ has degraded
- Next by Date: Re: I strongly object to how much SRQ has degraded
- Previous by thread: Re: I strongly object to how much SRQ has degraded
- Next by thread: Re: Maybe SRQ did not degrade as much as I thought...
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
