Ahab Posted July 24, 2020 Posted July 24, 2020 23 hours ago, TheTanakas said: When I was a little child. And dwelling in my kingdom, in my Father's house Who is that child and what kingdom do they have? It is a fictional (not true) story about a son of kings who lived somewhere in the Eastern province. The son was sent on a mission/quest to go find and learn some things, which if he did, he would be rewarded with glory. Kinda like us, children of kings in heaven (not just one king in heaven but many kings of the same lineage), who have sent us on missions/quests, which if we are successful, we will also be rewarded with glory.
Damien the Leper Posted July 24, 2020 Posted July 24, 2020 On 7/23/2020 at 1:31 PM, mfbukowski said: Unless you are a Gnostic, then all of it is true One might say that for every religious paradigm which one does not accept. in this case, it parallels OUR paradigm quite well, if you want to debate that. No need. St. Irenaeus addressed the problems and non-Christian doctrine of Gnosticism in Adversus Haereses. He did amazingly well and I could do no better.
Damien the Leper Posted July 24, 2020 Posted July 24, 2020 19 hours ago, InCognitus said: I find the "Gnosticim" label to be just another way of dismissing a point of view without examining it, much like the modern day usage of the word "cult". The word carries with it a wide range of supposed heretical ideas that may or may not be applicable to each situation. I'm not saying you are responsible for the label, because you are just using the same label that is applied to it by others, but that's also part of my point. People just pass along a label and as long as we assume the label is correct we think we don't need to look into it any further. I was looking at the Wikipedia article on the Hymn of the Pearl, and it says, "The hymn is commonly interpreted as a Gnostic view of the human condition, that we are spirits lost in a world of matter and forgetful of our true origin. This state of affairs may be ameliorated by a revelatory message delivered by a messenger, a role generally ascribed to Jesus. The letter thus takes on a symbolic representation of gnosis." Do you find any truth at all in that statement? I can definitely see why some feel this might fit within the realm of Gnosticism, but it hardly fits the broad picture of Gnosticism as it is widely applied, which the Wikipedia defines as: I don't like labels for this very reason. I prefer to make my own judgment on where it fits. You don't have to like the label. However, the Lord's anointed bishops and protectors of the faith, especially St. Irenaeus, have dealt with this issue. Irenaeus knew his heretical enemies and was familiar with their own label of Gnostic. With the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Christian faith has been untarnished by such utter rot.
Ahab Posted July 24, 2020 Posted July 24, 2020 (edited) 33 minutes ago, Damien the Leper said: You don't have to like the label. However, the Lord's anointed bishops and protectors of the faith, especially St. Irenaeus, have dealt with this issue. Irenaeus knew his heretical enemies and was familiar with their own label of Gnostic. With the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Christian faith has been untarnished by such utter rot. Well, sure! With the guidance of the Holy Spirit we can know the truth of all things. And all things opposed to the truth must of course be false. I would even go so far to say that having the guidance of the Holy Spirit is as important as having a Christ, Jesus, to save us. That while they each have distinct missions, they are both equally important. And our Father too. We need all 3 of them to be saved and to know how to be saved, and to know what it means to be saved.. Edited July 24, 2020 by Ahab
let’s roll Posted July 24, 2020 Posted July 24, 2020 4 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Yes, juicyfruit is his favorite. Happy day. I have at least one thing in common with God.😇 1
mfbukowski Posted July 24, 2020 Posted July 24, 2020 (edited) 33 minutes ago, Damien the Leper said: No need. St. Irenaeus addressed the problems and non-Christian doctrine of Gnosticism in Adversus Haereses. He did amazingly well and I could do no better. If you accept his premises. We do not. But unfortunately this closes the door to discussion. Just another mystery I guess, and an argument from an unquoted authority. All it does is point a finger at poor Irenaeus, one of the early authorities close in many ways, to our position. I just hope you are not pointing with the wrong..... nevermind. But I have a question. In the miraculous draught of fishes, after listening to the savior, why did they catch exactly 153 fish? Why do the scriptures specify that number? And why did your anti gnostic Christians choose the vesica pistis as their symbol? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/153_(number)#Mathematical_properties https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vesica_piscis Edited July 24, 2020 by mfbukowski 1
Ahab Posted July 24, 2020 Posted July 24, 2020 11 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: But I have a question. In the miraculous draught of fishes, after listening to the savior, why did they catch exactly 153 fish? Why do the scriptures specify that number? And you're asking him this question just in case it is something he knows? Like I often say, God and I know everything, and that is something he knows.
mfbukowski Posted July 24, 2020 Posted July 24, 2020 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Ahab said: And you're asking him this question just in case it is something he knows? Like I often say, God and I know everything, and that is something he knows. I am hoping he learns there are different ways of seeing. Edited July 24, 2020 by mfbukowski
Ahab Posted July 24, 2020 Posted July 24, 2020 4 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: I am hoping he learns there are different ways of seeing. That's a nice thing to hope for. I will join you in that.
mfbukowski Posted July 24, 2020 Posted July 24, 2020 (edited) 16 minutes ago, Ahab said: That's a nice thing to hope for. I will join you in that. It's in Luke and John, 2 evangelists with slightly different results. John mentions that the Savior told them to drop their nets now on the other side of the boat. The vesica piscis needs to have two sides and two circles, to achieve the number 153 as a ratio of its length and width. There's a lot in that as well,opposition and dialectic in all things etc. The almond shape as well has a lot of symbolic significance regarding creation. Moses' staff, it is said, was made of almond wood, and some think the tree of life was an almond tree. Philosophies of men? Sure, what isn't? But of course all of that and more is just "rot." It's amazing how much you can learn about the Savior by reading a lot of "rot." And all of that, with only the answer "It's a mystery " ! That's all they have and yet they know that half of it is rot. Go figure. Edited July 24, 2020 by mfbukowski 1
InCognitus Posted July 24, 2020 Posted July 24, 2020 27 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: If you accept his premises. We do not. But unfortunately this closes the door to discussion. Just another mystery I guess, and an argument from an unquoted authority. All it does is point a finger at poor Irenaeus, one of the early authorities close in many ways, to our position. I just hope you are not pointing with the wrong..... nevermind. But I have a question. In the miraculous draught of fishes, after listening to the savior, why did they catch exactly 153 fish? Why do the scriptures specify that number? And why did your anti gnostic Christians choose the vesica pistis as their symbol? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/153_(number)#Mathematical_properties https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vesica_piscis Numbers do not lie. God cannot lie. Therefore God must be a mathematician. 2
Ahab Posted July 24, 2020 Posted July 24, 2020 15 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: It's in Luke and John, 2 evangelists with slightly different results. John mentions that the Savior told them to drop their nets now on the other side of the boat. The vesica piscis needs to have two sides and two circles, to achieve the number 153 as a ratio of its length and width The almond shape as well has a lot of symbolic significance regarding creation. Thank you. I will be fascinated for at least a little while about what is now a new discovery that I have discovered. I like numbers and this one now ranks right up there with 666 to me.
Bernard Gui Posted July 24, 2020 Author Posted July 24, 2020 (edited) 5 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Yes, juicyfruit is his favorite. But as The Greatest Pragmatist, He doesn't need to reinvent the wheel, and does "what has been done on other worlds". Hey if it works, it works And being immanent helps Him keep the kids in line. Can't parent too well in the Floating Cloud of Nothing mode. Too hard to change those metaphoric diapers. That’s what the wife is for. 😜 (Written from the safety of an unmapped cave somewhere in the North Cascade Mountains.) Perhaps you are on to something important. Juicy Fruit was Grampa’s favorite gum. He always had a pack in his pocket, and some special times there was Black Jack. If ye could hie to Kolob in the twinkling of an eye, do ye think ye might discover where God’s laws began to apply? Then there’s the little thing about “there shall be no other name given nor any other way nor means whereby salvation can come unto the children of men, only in and through the name of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent”. Edited July 24, 2020 by Bernard Gui
Ahab Posted July 24, 2020 Posted July 24, 2020 8 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: That’s what the wife is for. 😜 A celestial wife, at that, who is so good that it doesn't bother her the least little bit to change all of those diapers, herself. And as a celestial husband, I suppose it wouldn't bother me either.
Bernard Gui Posted July 24, 2020 Author Posted July 24, 2020 (edited) 22 minutes ago, Ahab said: A celestial wife, at that, who is so good that it doesn't bother her the least little bit to change all of those diapers, herself. And as a celestial husband, I suppose it wouldn't bother me either. Crivens! But we wouldn’t be celestial husbands if it did, right? Edited July 24, 2020 by Bernard Gui
Bernard Gui Posted July 24, 2020 Author Posted July 24, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, InCognitus said: Numbers do not lie. God cannot lie. Therefore God must be a mathematician. No. Mathematicians must be God. Well, at least they think they are. They and house cats and symphony orchestra conductors. Edited July 24, 2020 by Bernard Gui
mfbukowski Posted July 25, 2020 Posted July 25, 2020 (edited) 6 hours ago, InCognitus said: Numbers do not lie. God cannot lie. Therefore God must be a mathematician. Lol!! But of course we know He is really an engineer. Not that different. https://images.app.goo.gl/ZBt1YXaspXrBGUNy9 Edited July 25, 2020 by mfbukowski
mfbukowski Posted July 25, 2020 Posted July 25, 2020 6 hours ago, Ahab said: Thank you. I will be fascinated for at least a little while about what is now a new discovery that I have discovered. I like numbers and this one now ranks right up there with 666 to me. Well it's just a different kind of literature to me, and humans organizing new "realities" We have our temple symbols, and similarly,they have theirs. But you can't condemn Gnosticism without answering why it is there in the scriptures. And it seems to me, that is what Leper is doing. I hope there is some substance to his point, but he hasn't shown it yet
mfbukowski Posted July 25, 2020 Posted July 25, 2020 (edited) 6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: Then there’s the little thing about “there shall be no other name given nor any other way nor means whereby salvation can come unto the children of men, only in and through the name of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent”. Yep But we can weasel out of those kinds of problems easily by making "Christ" a title ("Annointed One"). We use that strategy occasionally elsewhere,as in "Elias". Are we the only world where "men" dwell? Besides, it says the NAME of Christ, but who is the original? ? "Doing what has been done on other worlds" and aren't we all "saviors on Mount Zion"? Edited July 25, 2020 by mfbukowski
Bernard Gui Posted July 25, 2020 Author Posted July 25, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Yep But we can weasel out of those kinds of problems easily by making "Christ" a title ("Annointed One"). We use that strategy occasionally elsewhere,as in "Elias". Are we the only world where "men" dwell? Besides, it says the NAME of Christ, but who is the original? ? "Doing what has been done on other worlds" and aren't we all "saviors on Mount Zion"? This is the problem when you try to communicate with philosophers. 🎻 Edited July 25, 2020 by Bernard Gui
Meadowchik Posted July 25, 2020 Posted July 25, 2020 10 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: No. Mathematicians must be God. Well, at least they think they are. They and house cats and symphony orchestra conductors. Ha. The mathematicians I've known are not like that. Maybe because they work intimately with the surprising and perplexing fields of abstract objects, they develop a strong and healthy humility. They have to have it if they're committed to learning from the results. 1
mfbukowski Posted July 25, 2020 Posted July 25, 2020 (edited) 9 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: This is the problem when you try to communicate with philosophers. 🎻 You just don't understand the brilliance required for philosophifool thinking. 😉 Just fiddling a rondo..😜 Edited July 25, 2020 by mfbukowski 1
Bernard Gui Posted July 25, 2020 Author Posted July 25, 2020 26 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: You just don't understand the brilliance required for philosophifool thinking. 😉 Just fiddling a rondo..😜 😀 My college roommate called philosophy “vain strivings and verbal vexations.” Present company excluded, of course.
mfbukowski Posted July 25, 2020 Posted July 25, 2020 3 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: 😀 My college roommate called philosophy “vain strivings and verbal vexations.” Present company excluded, of course. And Wittgenstein would agree! He saw himself as a doctor on a mission to put himself out of business - as the best doctor would put himself out of business - by curing all diseases, or in this case, by curing those verbal vexations! But unfortunately to do that one must put on rubber gloves and get in there to shine a light on the cancer, and extract it, instead of ignoring it! 1
theplains Posted July 25, 2020 Posted July 25, 2020 23 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Uh, no Kingdom. The poem needs to be reworded since it says the child already has his or her own kingdom. It's unclear why you change the word to Kingdom as if you want to change the meaning - the poem say kingdom. Should Father's house also be changed to Father's House? When I was a little child. And dwelling in my kingdom, in my Father's house
Recommended Posts