They're going with Aliens again
(media.scored.co)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (38)
sorted by:
Well, Yaakov, if personality is the lesser state then you should abandon your personal account and stop pestering us with illogic.
I just rattled off a few Scriptures about God's plan for the nations (before and after Jews existed) and Jesus's work for them, there are many more. If the god of Israel wants to dominate the nations, what if he is the universal god and thus the best god of all the nations? Because if you think the real god or monad is the impersonal and nobody should have a personal god but should worship the impersonal as greater, then you're against Jesus as if he said something wrong. But people never can get around to hanging Jesus on his own words.
The real God is the one that is revealed in creation and that lets each person find out truth by a unique traversal of the one path of truth (and, when one comes across special revelation, testing that revelation by the nature of truth revealed in creation). If people don't accept the reality of what (or who) the real God is, people face natural consequences, because rejecting reality leads to negatives. Now, people might argue that, oh, that's an evil god using tactics against me, but if it's the true God then all their special pleading is for naught and all the negatives are what they deserve for their prior rejection of reality. So you wouldn't be able to tell apart the true God from a false god by saying the true God doesn't participate in allowing evils to happen to you; any devil can put bad things in your life and promise to relieve them when you worship him. So that's not how people discern that the Biblical God is the true God. Instead, they decide that based on (1) seeing the true God in creation or (2) seeing the true God defeating any other proposed god in a fair test. If the first doesn't work, you get the second, even if the other proposed god is yourself.
None of what you wrote makes sense and it is completely easy to hang Jesus with his own words.
For example, Jesus says that he speaks in parables in order to deceive people and prevent them from understanding and salvation doesn’t he
Exactly!
Funny you don't quote him. "Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand" (Matt. 13:13). Nothing about deception or prevention, but about inability. Now, he does quote Is. 6:9-10, where Isaiah is told to tell the people, with a taunting imperative and a "lest", "Perceive not ... lest they see", etc. However, in Hebrew idiom this is of course not a command but a contingency: either you go on not perceiving or you will see and be saved; and this is the way Jesus uses it.
You selectively quote.
The full bhoona is this:
Luk 8:10 he said, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of God, but for others they are in parables, so that ‘seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not understand.’
Deception.
The full quote didn't change anything. Delivering comms with different levels of comprehension to different audiences is standard practice for leaders. If your inner circle knows you use a codeword a certain way, and if your larger audience doesn't know that, you're giving perfectly good comms at two different levels (newcomer and initiate). There is no deception here unless the codeword is designed to contradict the ordinary use of the word.
Incidentally, all parents do this with children. If you're telling a story to a mixed audience and say someone was intimate with his wife, the children are receiving one valid level of information and the adults are receiving a deeper but also completely valid level of information. There is no deception in that at all (like there is with most Santa and Tooth Fairy narratives).
You're the one charging deception, but it's not in the text.