Amos

The deep structure theme of the bible is what you are looking for and it is exactly here that the bible is inerrant. To present the argument you must be able to defend it and you will need to know the whole story -- which now must be you own or it will leave you stranded. Your inquiry is not a waste of time because the question must arise before the answer can be found (remember, "seek and you shall find"?).

Amos

You might want to look under "metamorphosis" because that is really what it is all about, or look under "menopause" because that is the time of life when metamorphosis takes place. This event is universal among mankind and is why evangelists can be successfull all over the world.

An allegory best describes the tricks of the trade: it is normal for humans to spin a cocoon towards midlife and a properly directed religion aims to increase the density of this cocoon. Evangelists have an eye for this and go around popping this cocoon and so prematurely set free the child within that is later to become the true identity of man (in the image of God). The problem is that such a premature rebirth fornicates the child within and leaves the new creation stranded with immature wings never quite able to get to heaven. By their own admittance they are torn with the paradox sinful yet saved and will never come to understand that they are soaring between heaven and earth while burning scriptures to stay afloat.

Understanding the above it is no surprise that they are not welcome in many places around the world and one must wonder why it is such a popular sport in N.America.

Koyaanisqatsi

Holy mother of translucent pearls!

Amos, you are, without a single doubt in my mind, the strangest breath of fresh air this site has ever seen.

You're not even a theist. There is no word for you, my friend. You're a meta-theist; a mega-meta-maniacal-theist!

Just priceless!

<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Whether or not an actual man named Jesus lived and died and blah, blah, blah...who cares, when we've got Amos?

I vote Amos for Christ! A thousand times more incomprehensible than the trinity and yet, so captivating.

Your posts are like...like...the imagined screams of dendrites at the terrifying moment of synaptic firing!

Bravo, sir, bravo!

[ April 18, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

Karim

Hello, I agree with Koyaanisqatsi. We don't need Christ as long as we have Amos. I vote for you too.
I's funny that you are able to use a computer in order to tell us about stories that don't hold together. Anyway The topic of this discussion is a proof for Jesus and you don't have it therefore you're wasting our time and yours. It's funny also that there is no historical proof for the existence of Moses, Mohammad and definitely Jesus. Yet people like you as long as they still exist can believe in anything. Faith doesn't need logic but a language like "historical Jesus was the renewed Joseph, who was a carpenter only because carpenters are known to make many things, and since all things are made in sin Joseph was a courageous sinner. "Were you on drugs when you wrote this? I vote for you as the reborn Jesus who fathered Moses who was at odds with Muhammed. May the reborn Buddha Bless you. Amen

Regards

CX

I am an idiot [message deleted]

[ April 18, 2002: Message edited by: CX ]</p>

Eudaimonist

I vote Amos for Buddha instead. Just listening to him is confusing enough to suspend one's own rational processes, causing one to become aware of one's Buddha nature. Aummm...

Okay, I'll bite. How do you know this, Amos? How many Buddhas do you think Buddhism has generated? How many Christs (Christians) have Judaism and Catholicism generated?

[On topic: I have recently come to side with the idea that Jesus is probably non-historical, largely due to "The Jesus Puzzle" arguments.]

[ April 18, 2002: Message edited by: Eudaimonist ]</p>

spin

These things happen. (Probably a past tense would have been a little more accurate though.)

Amos

Hi Karim. Is that irony or what are you trying to say.

Amos

That's a good question but my argument here will be the advancement our civilization as compared to theirs. Yes, this includes both science and art and to justify this I hold that science extrapolates from omniscience and the arts are gifts of God through both inspirations from God and manifestations of God (as in the words of Gogol "he has no equal, he is God," Dead Souls) ).

Buddhism is great and has had fewer wrecks than we did. The flip side of this is that Nirvana emerges from chaos which now could mean that the human heart must be restless before it can be "at rest in thee." This would be true on all levels from the metaphysical to the physical, and from the clan (religion) to the national and in the end the international view of the nation.

I expected your question before I made the statement and was prepared for it. Science extrapolates from omniscience just means that the many questions generated by the experiment are prompted by the subconscious mind wherein we are omniscient. In this sense science also feeds omniscience wherein we perceive the experiment with noetic vision (as opposed to eidetic in our conscious mind).

Jesus was historical and the myth of the gospels was a true story but not in the common historic view. For example, the crucifixion and resurrection did happen but not in the literal sense of the word (no hammer and nails were needed for this).

Karim

As for the first part, I think it leads to judging current status based on the metaphysical backgroud which may lead to a certain social Darwinism. I don't buy it and don't discuss it.
However this part is interesting and for a historical discussion it may be of value.
"Jesus was historical and the myth of the gospels was a true story but not in the common historic view. For example, the crucifixion and resurrection did happen but not in the literal sense of the word (no hammer and nails were needed for this)."
Let me rephrase this. Everything happened but not in the literal sense of the word. Jesus existed but not in the literal sense. The NT is holy but not in the literal sense. The Apostles are real but not in the real sense. We may end up discussing what the real sense means. Jerusalem existed but not in the real sense......Guess what, it says nothing.
Regards