Volker.Doormann

Understanding is not to buy. It depends only from the state of consciousness of the questioner. Nothing of spiritual importance in the bible can taken literally. And to them, who do not want to receive the spiritual meaning of the OT and NT parables Matt 13 have a clear statement: "And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand."

The point is, that there is never a granted right to spiritual knowledge. This world still can exist without a spirituality order. Spiritual order is beyond this world and no rational intelligence can replace spiritual consciousness.

Quote:

You still have a lot left that you haven't discussed at all. What about hardening your heart? Why does God do that. Whether that was your first born or second born as you've described it, if my heart is hardened by God, how do I get Free Will!

If you accept, that there is a God had spoken spiritual nonsense and there is a slave separate to him, because it is written in a holy book, it is your acceptation. Why Jesus didn't have accept the teaching of the Jewish scholars? He as well as all other souls are a part of God and religion has the very only meaning to be aware of this to get free from all social and physical bonding. This is dramatized in all the parables of the bible. If you are aware, that you are a part of god, because you are exist as a spiritual consciousness - not as a physical slave to social leaders as p.e. Paul - it is your very own free recognition. Freedom is ever only related to recognition, not to a will. Recognition is a receiving function, will is an active function and if one depends on actions, he is not free, because he is bonded to his actions.

God is not to be localized apart from you in the sense, that he is there an you are here. The order of spiritality is alocal and acausal. You can recognize, that a god, who should harden your heart is of no spiritual value. This true recognition separates you from people, who do still understand spiritual freedom as a social hierarchical obedience cult like Paul. There never was a hardening by God. There ever were only a hardening in hearts of social scholars, taking religion as a tool to suppress the very own spiritual god existence in every creature.

Volker

BadBadBad

What state of consciousness does it depend on? Dream state?



I figured this would come up. There are some other places where there are even more explicit statements about how you have to have faith first, then you can understand what the Bible says. Thanks for pointing out this one. Let's stay on topic though. God hardens my heart. Does that impact me in hearing God's word? That's the topic.

Also, which parts of the Bible are not of spiritual importance? Where do you come up with this concept that nothing of spiritual importance can be taken literally? If the parts relating to spiritual importance, whichever parts those are, can't be taken literally, what mechanism do you use to interpret them? Are you saying that I have to have some sort of secondary revelation by the Holy Spirit to comprehend the primary revelation through the Bible? Again, if God hardens my heart, how does that affect me receiving this secondary revelation?



No, the point is that Romans says God chooses which souls will be dishonoured and damned and which ones will be honored and shown mercy. A right to spiritual knowledge, where did that come from? The point is that if God hardens my heart, creates me for dishonor, and shows me his wrath, as it says in Romans: "Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? " Romans says that God decides who has a right to spiritual knowledge. It doesn't say that I have Free Will to choose. It says God chooses and who am I as mere man to question that. I believe that is supported in your quote from Matthew: "Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given." God gives mercy to some, and damnation to others so that "I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. ROM 9:17" Just like it says about hardening Pharaoh's heart in Exodus.

Most of what you've had to say is all spiritual, dream state, float on clouds fluff. You've made basically two arguments. One, this passage is meant to be symbolic. Without any basis, you and perhaps some other embarrassed apologists have come up with a symbolic reading that erases the glaring contradiction between this passage and the concept of Free Will. Two, you can't understand the spiritual content of the Bible unless you are "given" "the mysteries of the kingdom of Heaven."

I don't think you've established the symbolic reading, and the quote from Matthew supports my case, not yours.

BadBadBad

Very well put Clutch. Since I was a child, I was ignorant about the Bible and most church doctrine. As an adult, pressured by Christian culture, I am educating myself in defense. I am continually shocked at how flimsy and silly the concept of Christianity really is.

Volker.Doormann

Truth is beyond your topics.



Jewish History.



The stories of the Hebrew Pentateuch are taken from well known Sumerian and Hinduism created myths. The Hebrew 'YHWH' => 'I am the life!' Hebrew: Chavvah is taken from the third Hindu trinity 'Brahm' - 'Vishnu' - 'Shiva'. Shiva is related to life and Shiva are the Hebrew 'HWH' known as 'EVA' or 'EVE'. ABrahm and Sara are taken from he Hindu couple Brahm and Sara_svati. Noah is taken from the Gilgamesh Epos from about 2800 B.C.E. The origin meaning of all this symbols describing the stages of life of a human creature and his searching for an immortal life as a soul. Hebrews have taken this stories loaded with symbols and have claimed them as the History of the Semites. But that is recognizable not true. It is recognizable that the descending stories from this myths have sources beyond the Hebrew culture and can therefore not taken literally doormann.org/the0.htm. The concept of that firstborn/twiceborn scenario, that many times is dramatized in the OT with Cain and Abel and others has it's roots in the Indian Vedas and is described as 'laws' in the 'Code of Manu' The 'Manu_smriti', doormann.org/manuslaw.txt from that the Semites got their name in Mesopotamia in about 2300 B.C.E. with the end of the Sumerian culture. The paradisiacal garden Eden is a symbol of the female womb and the tree of life is a penis that is placed in midst of the 'garden of joy' (Hebr. 'gan eden') to create life. Symbols, symbols, symbols - ad infinitum. Literally nothing of the OT stories make sense.

That is an opinion. I think I have shown, that the symbols have a hidden meaning, which can be understand with the soul, not with the mind.

Volker

Sur-reality

I'm not going to pretend to know ancient hebrew sumerian or indian. But i will say that i wou;d like to see some nice proof that these symbols were confused or did you just make them up because they looked alike in the english. Come on you don't think i am as stupid as to fall ofr that do you? you really should try harder.

Sur-reality

Another thing that i just realized did Adam have two penises
Because i seem to remember that there were two trees?
Just an astute observation

Volker.Doormann

" After heaven and earth had been separated and mankind had been created, after Anucircum, Enlil and Ereskigal had taken possession of heaven, earth and the underworld; after Enki had set sail for the underworld and the sea ebbed and flowed in honor of its lord; on this day, a huluppu tree which had been planted on the banks of the Euphrates and nourished by its waters was uprooted by the south wind and carried away by the Euphrates. A goddess who was wandering among the banks seized the swaying tree and -- at the behest of Anu and Enlil -- brought it to Inanna's garden in Uruk. Inanna tended the tree carefully and lovingly she hoped to have a throne and a bed made for herself from its wood. After ten years, the tree had matured. But in the meantime, she found to her dismay that her hopes could not be fulfilled because during that time a dragon had built its nest at the foot of the tree the Zubird was raising its young in the crown, and the demon Lilith had built her house in the middle. But Gilgamesh, who had heard of Inanna's plight, came to her rescue. He took his heavy shield killed the dragon with his heavy bronze axe, which weighed seven talents and seven minas. Then the Zubird flew into the mountains with its young, while Lilith, petrified with fear, tore down her house and fled into the wilderness."
Ref.: Kramer, Samuel Noah. "Gilgamesh and the Huluppu-Tree: A reconstructed Sumerian Text." Assyriological Studies of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago 10. Chicago: 1938.

Volker

BadBadBad

Let's have the truth with respect to my topic.


So everything but Jewish History is not to be taken literally? Everything but Jewish History is to be interpreted symbollically or allegorically? I think you have a lot of work then coming up with any meaning for most of the Bible.

Your long paragragh justifying symbolism in the OT has nothing to do with Romans or Exodus. Can we deal with the topic at hand?

You have expressed an opinion that you believe this passage in Romans is symbollic. You haven't shown that in fact it's true, nor have you given anything at all to support that. You also haven't explained one of my principal questions which is what about hardening hearts and how that affects "Free Will."

I think the plain simple language in the passage stands as is.

Volker.Doormann

Correct.

Correct.

No. It’s already done.

That is an opinion.

No. I have shown by references , that the symbols in the Hebrew scripture are taken from myth stories outside the Hebrew culture.

Truth is not to be shown. It only can be recognized. I have mentioned the Indian Vedas and the Sumerian mythology; I think you have read all that text. (?)

I have written my thoughts about that here.

Volker

BadBadBad

I read this passage. I find it contradictory to the Free Will doctrine. I'd like to understand the christian point of view on it. Do you believe your position is recognized by biblical scholars and most other apologists?

The post from Old Man sure didn't answer it in the same way.