Talk About Network

Google


Register and Login
Nick
Password
Register create new account Sign up is FREE and you can post replies, new topics, bookmark posts and more!
Recover lost password


Religion > Christianity > Re: "Thinker" o...
Latest [ Topics | Posts ] Archive Post A New Topic Post a Reply
<< Topic < Post Post 2 of 5 Topic 22116 of 22556
Post > Topic >>

Re: "Thinker" or "Reciever"?

by "John Smith" <bobsyoungbro@[EMAIL PROTECTED] > May 3, 2008 at 08:36 PM

"Elder(:)Child" <yoodaw@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:bd8f41de-a782-4f9c-82b3-e7b730c6bade@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Have you laid the foundation of a "thinker"?
>

I certainly hope so!



> A logician of precise 'thoughts', establi****ng a
> 'dike' that would seek to keep out any and all
> unreasonableness of the natural mind. A 'dike'
> filled with holes, yet 'logic' believes the 'dike'
> will withstand any flood of words that would
> question the logicians 'thought' processes.

Logic is a process - not as "god".
Logic cannot do anything - people use the process.
ANYONE knowing or seeking a path of "logic" immediately realizes that
logic 
is not the end all to end alls. (i.e. a rock solid dyke)
Religious zealots try to paint that picture, about those who use logic,
and 
then attack that as their own strawman.


>
> Problem!
>
> Logic is not The Truth!

No. Truth has to do with facts and reality; logic is a process.
So what?
Logic was never meant to be truth - only LEAD to "truth".


>
> Truth is Miracles happen and Miracles defy logic!

No. The truth is that there is no such thing as miracles. Miracles fall 
under the heading of religious beliefs - and since NO religion has EVER 
proven itself as reality based fact - miracles cannot be used as a factual

term.

"UNEXPLAINABLE" things happen ... all the time.
Logicians know that ..... as do scientists.
Being "unexplainable" does NOT automatically make them into "religious 
miracles".


>
> And Faith grounded in revelatory miracles can
> not be shaken!

Faith is not meant to be "shaken".
All logic and science can do is show the reality of a situatuion
(including 
the fact that there are unexplainables).
People can take it or leave it for the thre religious world of faith.



'Receivers' rejoice against 'logic',
> for their 'Faith' is not of the flesh(earth), fleshly
> and 'natural', but of The Spirit(heaven), heavenly
> and 'spiritual'!

IOW - "receivers" rejoice against that which is real, valid, verifiable
and 
truthful?
Are you sure that's what you want to say?

There is NO reason why that of the "spirit" has to contradict logic and 
reason.
It is only the zealous fanatics who delve into that insanity, treating
them 
as opposites.


>
> Their 'meat' is revelation, experiential knowledge
> given of their Father!

Thier meat is rotten!
There is no evidence that there even IS a "father".
"Experiential knowledge" is the least meaningful and valid of all
knowledge.


Gray becomes their least
> favorite color,

No; gray is their favorite color - but only when they use it to their own 
advantage.



their own 'life' and 'thoughts' their
> enemy and this world is 'seen' as the wicked
> and evil creation of 'logical' men. 'mindful' men
> used of this world's 'god' in the abuse of all that
> Is The Messiah!
>
> The 'receivers' "exercise their senses in the
> discernment of that which is good, and that
> which is evil"!

They excerscise their own (warped - holier than thou) ego ... just like 
anyone else. They just pretend they have the blesings of a god to do so.


>
> In the religions of this world discernment is often
> looked upon as 'judgement' and such blindness
> gives way to the "i'm ok, you're ok" theo'ry'logy
> that is of 'the god of this world'.

What?
You're apparently trying to sound more educated than you really are.



>
>
> "Lo, here is The Messiah, lo, there is The Messiah"
> is the call of that which calls herself 'christianity' and
> confusion reigns as Truth is rendered obsolete
> rather than absolute!
>
> And The ONE GOD, Father of ALL has given The
> Call to repent and:

There you go bellowing about that (unproven) god again ..... as though it 
has a valid, real world, factual basis.
 




 5 Posts in Topic:
"Thinker" or "Reciever"?
"Elder(:)Child"  2008-05-03 11:36:15 
Re: "Thinker" or "Reciever"?
"John Smith" &l  2008-05-03 20:36:49 
Re: "Thinker" or "Reciever"?
"Elder(:)Child"  2008-05-04 06:57:19 
Re: "Thinker" or "Reciever"?
"John Smith" &l  2008-05-04 21:56:35 
Re: "Thinker" or "Reciever"?
"Elder(:)Child"  2008-05-04 16:00:31 

Post A Reply:
  Go here to Signup

AddThis Feed Button


About - Advertising - Contact - Frequently Asked Questions - Privacy Policy - Terms of Use - Signup

Contact
tan13V112 Fri Jul 25 22:59:51 CDT 2008.