• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Key

  • Rank
    Spiritual Pilgrim
  • Birthday 11/15/1964

Helpful Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Here, not There

Recent Profile Visitors

2,612 profile views
  1. Key

    Brain Damage and Fundamentalism

    Sorry, can't help it, but this explains Trump so much!
  2. A couple of problems with this, Dan, at least. Most glaring is your first sentence. If it must come to pass, then we may never know in our lifetime if a prophecy may have come to pass. People may often proclaim an event as fulfilling a prophecy, when it may not have. Part of that error is due to some prophecies being a bit vague, yes? Another, you're relying upon a book that was written by men to provide substance to a message? A book that may have been questionably altered, or has been often misinterpreted? Then there's that misinterpretation thing. What if the message aligns with an interpretation, but unknowingly, it's the wrong interpretation? (This isn't to say a "prophet" would be giving the meaning, either.) Personally, I'd rather hear from the horse's mouth, or rather from God, Himself. As I do believe, I know that I would.
  3. Further debate, then. How do we know it was truly God that gave them a vision, or even that the one recording was a prophet. Afterall, we'd only have their word for it. There are supposed "prophets" from various religions, and not just different sects of Christianity. Surely, you must acknowledge that there have been various individuals that have claimed a vision from God led them to "transcribe" or lead. That you do not accept them due to they not being "Christian" does not necessarily make them wrong, nor right. (God does choose whoever He wishes. Which can be seemingly odd, at times.) Some are well known, and others not so much. As for conformity, that relies upon the use of preference and preconceptions. It is comparative analysis. Absolutely, one can align what Christ, or anyone, for that matter, taught with what one thinks. That is interpretative comprehension. The very reason there are so many sects, or at least one of the reasons.
  4. Then clearly you must understand that simply from what you just shared, these dreams that you say can inspire may come from below, acting as the divine. Satan can be a crafty fellow, who knows Scripture better than we, surely. Which requires considerable ability for discernment.
  5. Very little, as far as I'm aware, has been absolutely confirmed as to whom wrote which parts of the Bible and even when. Also, it has been copied many times over, with variations recorded, as well. Then, too, for a time, only Church officials or church appointed scribes were allowed to create copies. How does this prevent insertion of policy or passages for control, possibly as sanctioned by someone of power within the organization? (Btw, I hardly think scribes would be considered prophets.) Who could vouch that a person was moved by the Holy Spirit, other than the one being motivated? Speaking of tongues was common until it was required that more than one person able to translate needed to be present to assert it was genuine. Could that be said of those moved? Again, playing devil's advocate, could this passage not have been placed to assert influence and deflect questioning? Remember, not all can hear God speak. So how do we know He DID speak to certain individuals? (This would apply to the Holy Spirit, as well. As part of the Trinity, they are all one.) I do not deny a Holy Spirit. Nor do I deny many unknowns and possibilities, just so you understand.
  6. God inspired, yet not written by Him. The Pharisees were a sect that was God inspired, one could say. Yet, we don't follow their rules in this day and age, yes? As men are fallible, how then can the Bible be reliable. One might argue, that to be familiar with what "men" wrote as the Word of God, might only prove reliable in confirming what "men" wrote. These could be lies, or an edict towards an agenda. As much as one may cry "blasphemy", it is very possible as a means to control the masses. Theocracies only last as long as power is held. You may call it schematics, but the fact that you are still "choosing" what to believe to be true is still aligning your beliefs with your thoughts. You may have made adjustments that changed your thinking, true, but it ultimately was your own thoughts that allowed you to accept the adjustments. Btw, I'm not saying I believe exactly all of this. I am simply presenting a devil's advocate point of view. Exploring possibilities and discovering insights on my journey to learning. I am, after all, what I proclaim beneath my handle here on the forum, a "Spiritual Pilgrim."
  7. Key

    value of religion

    Debatable. Writing, medicine, history, and science were all born from necessities of life, and not necessarily from any temple edict. Surely, engineers would have developed the wheel to move things easier, without the help of any religion. And no religion would have been able to prevent it from becoming general knowledge, yes?
  8. Actually, there is. Many, in fact. The foremost is whether to accept anything on faith alone to begin with. Then there is the basis of what Christ taught, to question and verify. As He said there would be many false prophets that would come after He left, we are to question so as not to be led astray. But how to verify, or confirm? Christ didn't write the Bible; He who was without sin. Instead it was written by men who were fallible, and, quite frankly, possibly very sinful, or may have had a personal agenda. How to trust that then? Therein is the need for a God reveal of sorts, no? There are many many more thoughts for inquisition. Lastly, but you did choose a faith that aligns with what you think, for that is how readily you accepted it.
  9. In as much as his response may have been used to your view, he actually was responding to me, my friend.
  10. Therein lies the conundrum then. If one is to take anything on faith, they then gamble on which faith is right. Some say the truth will be revealed to them, but the truth may be that none are right, for that is one of the many odds in gambling, isn't it? Some say, choose the faith that feels right, or aligns with one's own beliefs. Another gamble. Islam feels right to some, Christianity to some, and so on. Then there is the extortion for faith view, where an ultimatum is issued to conscript followers to a faith. The believe or suffer severe consequences recruitment drive. This only brings the obedience as slaves kind of adherence to the faith. Oppression rarely creates true faith, but rather drives desire for self preservation from the oppressors. This is the Heaven and Hell presentation to many people, don't you see? If God truly gives free will and wants folks to use it to choose Him to follow and adhere, then why the need for an ultimatum?
  11. All well and good, I suppose. However, there are those who see in Scripture that He had said if one has much faith in Him as a mustard seed, one shall be saved. Whereas, it is He is also to have said that to those pleading to Him to be saved from eternal torment He will proclaim He never knew them. In essence, turn His back on those clinging to the mustard seed of faith to be saved. For why plead, if unbelieving He can save them even then? Just one of several issues I have heard others present as argument for contradiction. Then, there are many who argue, as Scripture is written by men, no matter their inspiration, as men are corruptible or infallible, so, too, may be the written word. There lays the burden of proof without the use of Scripture, unless Scripture can be conclusively be proven to be true, as well. How do you prove Heaven and Hell, without any Holy Texts? This is what you are being asked. So, how would you answer?
  12. Key


    Thank you for sharing this.
  13. Key


    I, for one, was never even aware of a Universal Life University. Not sure it's affiliated with us. I'm sure someone here will correct me if I'm mistaken, and possibly point you in the right direction. Peace and blessings.
  14. Key

    value of religion

    Your comment on bias is also true to a certain extent. To have bias, however, is to deny equality. Having preference of one thing over another is never equality. I said as much in regards to what science has or hasn't proven. As for the speculation comment, the same could and has been said of creationism. As for the "running constant interference", isn't that part of testing one's faith? Clearly that point has been made many times in the Bible. And, again, it is only truly interference if one's faith is obstructed, which, again, can only be done by the one holding onto that faith.