Religion III

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

The "repentant thief" never repented...and you know that. IMO...that was just a convenient fable added as an advertisement that Christianity could be packaged and sold. The Popes started selling sin-forgiveness certificates as a result of that story.

Yeah, he did. After several hours of hanging on the cross, he quit reviling against Jesus, as he did at the first with the other criminal. And that is precisely what repentance is all about: A change of mind that leads to a change of action. The Gr. term "metanoeo" literally means to think differently.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by hcap

Tree of Life versus the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil

The "tree of life" is the "balance" needed to perceive oneself and the universe.
Intellect in it's place, not used to over analyze. Many popularized western religious ways lose this.

One cannot be a proficient artist, say a great musician without the "being" to play. The PRACTICE of religion requires Being. Knowledge alone doesn't cut it. However spiritual exercises abound.

Meditation and prayer are needed.

Genesis is both an analogy for how humanity lost "being" as a whole, and how a child loses what Ouspenky and Gurdjieff called being, or the "essence" As we grow, PERSONALITY or acquired knowledge and habitual behavior fractures our being.

The expulsion from the Garden or "fall" of man, is an old metaphor for the tree of humanity and one leaf or an individual on that tree.

Additionally, low level functions of the two hemispheres of the brain are localized......

Linear reasoning functions of language such as grammar and word production are often lateralized to the left hemisphere of the brain. In contrast, holistic reasoning functions of language such as intonation and emphasis are often lateralized to the right hemisphere of the brain. Other integrative functions such as intuitive or heuristic arithmetic, binaural sound localization, etc. seem to be more bilaterally controlled.[11]

A very rough division between knowledge and being.

However there is also much evidence the "higher level" brain functioning is shared between both hemispheres. In a way, spiritual development partially depends on the increase of the harmonious working of both hemispheres.
.
Spend some time at a religious retreat. Work at various tasks takes place as well as study and discussion of religious text. I have at a Catholic monastery, a Zen center, and an Ouspensky study group.

Harmony between knowledge and being is the key.

One early establishment of a FOURTH Way School was ...

G. Gurdjieff's Institute for the Harmonious Development of Man

Boxcar, your "Total depravity" is a total misinterpretation of a very old tale that repeats in some degree in many religions. That's why the voluminous evidence I have posted about the recent decrease of sinning totally contradicts you and Calvin.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Yeah, he did. After several hours of hanging on the cross, he quit reviling against Jesus, as he did at the first with the other criminal. And that is precisely what repentance is all about: A change of mind that leads to a change of action. The Gr. term "metanoeo" literally means to think differently.

Here you go again, showcasing your poor interpretation skills. Yes...the Greek word "metanoia" means to change one's way of thinking. But "repentance", which was the word that you originally used to describe the thief, means to show regret and remorse for what one has done. There is no real connection between these two words...because "metanoia" does not presuppose that there is any "remorse" taking place about that which we now think differently about. We can easily change our way of thinking without having remorse for anything.

To borrow your own debating tactic...can you show me from scripture where the dying thief expressed any "regret or remorse" for what he had done, in his conversation with the crucified Jesus?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Here you go again, showcasing your poor interpretation skills. Yes...the Greek word "metanoia" means to change one's way of thinking. But "repentance", which was the word that you originally used to describe the thief, means to show regret and remorse for what one has done. There is no real connection between these two words...because "metanoia" does not presuppose that there is any "remorse" taking place about that which we now think differently about. We can easily change our way of thinking without having remorse for anything.

To borrow your own debating tactic...can you show me from scripture where the dying thief expressed any "regret or remorse" for what he had done, in his conversation with the crucified Jesus?

I looked up the verb form of repent! And the fact is that he did! He certainly thought a lot differently

And how do you know he felt no remorse or sorrow? Do you think Jesus and this thief were having prolonged conversations as they hung on their crosses in agony?

Also, the noun "metanoia" means compunction for guilt, including reformation. There's nothing said about sorrow,regret or remorse, although certainly such normally accompanies repentance.

Look up the noun in an online lexicon, Strong's 3341 and see how it's used in the NT.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I looked up the verb form of repent! And the fact is that he did! He certainly thought a lot differently

And how do you know he felt no remorse or sorrow? Do you think Jesus and this thief were having prolonged conversations as they hung on their crosses in agony?

Also, the noun "metanoia" means compunction for guilt, including reformation. There's nothing said about sorrow,regret or remorse, although certainly such normally accompanies repentance.

Look up the noun in an online lexicon, Strong's 3341 and see how it's used in the NT.

I don't understand what you are asking me. In post #299 you mentioned the "repentant thief"...and in post #301 you introduced the Greek word" metanoia" to the conversation..and you tried to connect the meaning of this word to the word "repentance". I don't think that I've ever used the word metanoia on this board...and I certainly didn't intend to use this word now. All I said in response was that there is a great deal of difference between the two words...because the word "repentance" doesn't just mean to change one's mind about something...it means that there must also be regret and remorse for something already done.

How do I know that the thief didn't repent? Because the Gospel of Luke tells me so. The thief verbally reprimanded the other thief, who was ridiculing Jesus...by reminding him that, whereas they were receiving just punishment for their sins...Jesus was being wrongfully executed because he was an innocent man. And then he turned to Jesus and asked to be remembered when Jesus got to his heavenly kingdom...and Jesus granted him entrance into the heavenly life. There was no remorse ever recorded anywhere in that conversation...as far as Luke was concerned. Now...is it possible that a show of remorse took place somewhere there, without Luke having noticed it? Sure...but you can't have it both ways, Boxcar. You can't be asking people to show you "proof from scripture" whenever you disagree with something...and then ignore this same scripture yourself whenever it suits you. When you ask another for "proof from scripture" whenever you deem it necessary...then you should also be prepared to provide such proof yourself, when the shoe is on the other foot. So, I repeat...can you show me from scripture where the thief showed the sort of remorse for his sins which would qualify him to be called "repentant"?

[hcap]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I don't think that I've ever used the word on this board...and I certainly didn't intend to use this word now. All I said in response was that there is a great deal of difference between the two words...because the word "repentance" doesn't just mean to change one's mind about something...it means that there must also be regret and remorse for something already done.

We have discussed metanoia before. As we have many other related misinterpreted subjects. From the original Religious thread post#21601
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/s...ostcount=21601

Originally Posted by hcap

More on why we must try NOT to use habitual mind to discern spiritual truth.

From Maurice Nicoll...

So, the first question that each of us must answer, that is, if our quest is to transform our lives into a life filled with experiences and the kinds of quality relationships we desire, is "Why do we find it so difficult to receive new ideas?" The simple answer is that due to the time period into which each of us is born, our experiences and conditioning, and the environment—both cultural and religious—that we are raised in, creates a mind within us that, like the moon ever circling the Earth, navigates the course of our lives within a closed set of ideas, conventions and beliefs.

http://www.gurdjieffwork.com/site/in...=102390&DL=243

— Maurice Nicoll —

Here lies one of the deepest ideas in the psychological teachings of the Gospels. A radical, permanent transformation is taught as being possible and 'metanoia' is the technical description of it. But a man cannot reach a permanent higher level of himself unless there is built up in him a connection of ideas that can gradually lift him beyond his present level. The idea of the self-evolution of man, the idea of metanoia or 'transformation of mind', and the idea of the Kingdom of Heaven are all connected and related ideas. Christ's teaching is about a possible individual evolution in a man. Everyone on this planet is capable of a certain inner growth and individual development, and this is his true significance and his deepest meaning, and begins with metanoia.

[hcap]

At the root of all of it, is boxcar's use of biblical texts as accurate historical fact. And just how crazy he becomes justifying his"god's" inhumanity as justice or righteous vengeance.

It becomes painful to watch all the mental gymnastics and never-ending paranoid rationalizations he must employ in order to plead his case.

I have been trying to deconstruct one of the worst biblical frauds ever, Calvin's "total depravity", and he becomes his usual mechanical wind up toy defending it.

To take Genesis and Adm and Eve literally as historical fact should be subject of professional therapy.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I don't understand what you are asking me. In post #299 you mentioned the "repentant thief"...and in post #301 you introduced the Greek word" metanoia" to the conversation..and you tried to connect the meaning of this word to the word "repentance". I don't think that I've ever used the word metanoia on this board...and I certainly didn't intend to use this word now. All I said in response was that there is a great deal of difference between the two words...because the word "repentance" doesn't just mean to change one's mind about something...it means that there must also be regret and remorse for something already done.

How do I know that the thief didn't repent? Because the Gospel of Luke tells me so. The thief verbally reprimanded the other thief, who was ridiculing Jesus...by reminding him that, whereas they were receiving just punishment for their sins...Jesus was being wrongfully executed because he was an innocent man. And then he turned to Jesus and asked to be remembered when Jesus got to his heavenly kingdom...and Jesus granted him entrance into the heavenly life. There was no remorse ever recorded anywhere in that conversation...as far as Luke was concerned. Now...is it possible that a show of remorse took place somewhere there, without Luke having noticed it? Sure...but you can't have it both ways, Boxcar. You can't be asking people to show you "proof from scripture" whenever you disagree with something...and then ignore this same scripture yourself whenever it suits you. When you ask another for "proof from scripture" whenever you deem it necessary...then you should also be prepared to provide such proof yourself, when the shoe is on the other foot. So, I repeat...can you show me from scripture where the thief showed the sort of remorse for his sins which would qualify him to be called "repentant"?

No, you are again arguing from silence. Just because Luke's gospel doesn't mention remorse or regret doesn't necessarily mean that the repentant thief didn't have any. Again, TO REPENT (verb) is to think differently. It is to have a change of mind that leads to a different action. That is the warp 'n' woof of what it means to repent.

Going by your argument from silence, are we supposed to believe that in the Parable of the Prodigal Son (also in Luke's gospel, cf. 15:11-32) that this parable is not teaching among other things that the prodigal repented of his sins!?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

At the root of all of it, is boxcar's use of biblical texts as accurate historical fact. And just how crazy he becomes justifying his"god's" inhumanity as justice or righteous vengeance.

It becomes painful to watch all the mental gymnastics and never-ending paranoid rationalizations he must employ in order to plead his case.

I have been trying to deconstruct one of the worst biblical frauds ever, Calvin's "total depravity", and he becomes his usual mechanical wind up toy defending it.

To take Genesis and Adm and Eve literally as historical fact should be subject of professional therapy.

There you go projecting again. If anything, it is excruciatingly painful to watch you distort and twist the words of scripture beyond recognition. But understand this: In the end you will suffer; for you, along with all the other unstable and untaught, will distort the scriptures in vain, for it will have all been for your destruction (2Pet 3:16).

At least my interpretation of scripture in in total sync with how Jesus, the apostles and prophets interpreted the scriptures. In other words, my hermeneutical principles are biblically sound.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

There you go projecting again. If anything, it is excruciatingly painful to watch you distort and twist the words of scripture beyond recognition. But understand this: In the end you will suffer; for you, along with all the other unstable and untaught, will distort the scriptures in vain, for it will have all been for your destruction (2Pet 3:16).

At least my interpretation of scripture in in total sync with how Jesus, the apostles and prophets interpreted the scriptures. In other words, my hermeneutical principles are biblically sound.

Wrong bunky. The Universe was not created as Genesis describes literally. Nor did an actual god kick out "Adam and Eve" from a mythological "Garden of Eden" for breaking his cruel arbitrary rules.

You and other liker fanatics are one of the reasons organized religion is dying.

And a major market for the sale of strait jackets

[hcap]

At least my interpretation of scripture in in total sync with how Jesus, the apostles and prophets interpreted the scriptures. In other words, my hermeneutical principles are biblically sound.

Your application of "hermeneutical principles" are without worldly wisdom.
As are all of your absurd proclamations. The latest instance is your ridiculous defense of total depravity

You have ignored real world evidence it is not total. My lack of "hermeneutical principles" at least from a scientific real world point of view postulates NO contradictions with fact.

Myth and fable can be understood without claiming accurate historical "events" are needed. However understanding psychology and oneself are a great help.

You have neither understanding or actual historical events

[hcap]

More total depravity

https://www.facebook.com/HappyPuppin...4322850361193/

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by boxcar

No, you are again arguing from silence. Just because Luke's gospel doesn't mention remorse or regret doesn't necessarily mean that the repentant thief didn't have any. Again, TO REPENT (verb) is to think differently. It is to have a change of mind that leads to a different action. That is the warp 'n' woof of what it means to repent.

Going by your argument from silence, are we supposed to believe that in the Parable of the Prodigal Son (also in Luke's gospel, cf. 15:11-32) that this parable is not teaching among other things that the prodigal repented of his sins!?

Whenever someone suggests something that you disagree with...you always ask..."show me where it says that in scripture". But when someone ELSE asks you to provide the scripture in order to support YOUR argument...then your reply always is..."just because scripture doesn't say it doesn't mean it didn't happen". We don't know what really happened, Boxcar...scripture is all that we have to go on. And you yourself has said that scripture is enough...so, I don't know why you are doing all this extra projecting now...about what MIGHT have happened, or not.

As the Gospel of Luke stands...there was no repentance that went on, no matter HOW you choose to define the word. The first thief ridiculed Jesus...by mocking him that he should have been able to save himself if he were indeed the "Son of God". The other thief, who was obviously of higher character...reprimanded the first thief by reminding him that they were being killed because they were criminals...whereas Jesus was an innocent man. When the thief asked to be remembered by Jesus...he never expressed any "change of mind"...and that is obvious to any logical person who has read that story. And you know this yourself, but, being the intellectually dishonest person that you are...you will bend any fact in order to support a faulty argument. Yes...there is another Gospel which reports that BOTH these thieves were ridiculing Jesus...but that Gospel doesn't report the part of the conversation where the thief asks Jesus to remember him. So...you've conveniently elected to COMBINE the two gospels...by suggesting that the "repentant thief" initially ridiculed Jesus...but then "changed his mind". But this "combining" only exists in your mind...and not in scripture. And that's why you are not worth talking to, when it comes to such matters.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Your application of "hermeneutical principles" are without worldly wisdom.
As are all of your absurd proclamations. The latest instance is your ridiculous defense of total depravity

You have ignored real world evidence it is not total. My lack of "hermeneutical principles" at least from a scientific real world point of view postulates NO contradictions with fact.

Myth and fable can be understood without claiming accurate historical "events" are needed. However understanding psychology and oneself are a great help.

You have neither understanding or actual historical events

God's foolishness is wiser than the world's wisdom. This is why God's wisdom is of inestimable value.

And there is only one right way to understand scripture: The way the original hearers understood it.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by boxcar

And there is only one right way to understand scripture: The way the original hearers understood it.

There is only one way to understand scripture...the way that Boxcar explains it. Like the part about the death of Judas. One Gospel says that Judas hanged himself...and the other Gospel says that Judas fell headlong and had his guts spill out of his abdomen. So...Boxcar interprets this as Judas originally hanging himself, and then the rope subsequently breaking...thus causing Judas to fall headlong and rupturing his abdomen. Even though the only way a hanged man can fall headlong is if he were hanging from his feet. But, WAIT...it could have been that he chose to hang himself from a tree that was itself hanging over a cliff. As if a suicidal man would bother to go to such lengths in order to kill himself.

You are a fool, boxcar...and I am TWICE the fool for engaging you in conversation.