How does one "choose" a Belief System?

[Jaebius]

Its not just same sex, is all sin, and all mountains , I think being born again , to some it goes to there heads.

Keep praying till you get a break through , sounds like mans will not Gods

???

I do not have the homosexual orientation brother.

 

[Luce NDs]

Its not just same sex, is all sin, and all mountains , I think being born again , to some it goes to there heads.

Keep praying till you get a break through , sounds like mans will not Gods

Thus hom Meo mortal as Morticai ... Morticians?

 

[blackbelt1961]

???

I do not have the homosexual orientation brother.

I wasn't suggesting you do , I was just making a point of a lot of evangelicals

 

[Luce NDs]

???

I do not have the homosexual orientation brother.

You don't love your bros.? Stuff made of Moe 'L ills ... small demiurge ...

 

[chansen]

I wasn't suggesting you do , I was just making a point of a lot of evangelicals

That a lot of evangelicals are homosexuals? The way they obsess over it, I think it's likely they are.

 

[Jaebius]

You don't love your bros.? Stuff made of Moe 'L ills ... small demiurge ...

I love them in the Christian way Luce.

 

[blackbelt1961]

I love them in the Christian way Luce.

I would rather you buy me a beer

 

[Jaebius]

I would rather you buy me a beer

Only if it's a MUG.

 

[Delightful Life]

I have to say that, from my experience, while it's possible to seek out mystical experiences, that the success of seeking and finding versus not-seeking and finding is pretty equal.

does this include peak experiences as well?

 

[Luce NDs]

I love them in the Christian way Luce.

Enlightened despairing ... odd dissociation?

 

[Luce NDs]

does this include peak experiences as well?

Tis a veiled expression like intuitive bones ... bonnie lasses? As in a piece of bone and a hank 've Eire ... if you can imagine or intuit that with your mother's pyrite ... fools imagination?

Tis a golden opportunity to die to the world ... as long as you don't go too far and can't get back to a bit of awareness ... it does seem the whole world is drifting into darkness though denying the occult arts ... opposing wisdom and connected essences ...

Scratched bones? The wails of scrimshaw ... the very though can draw the thoughts of Hannibal's critters ... memories of elephants ... approach of extinction ... given what we know appears to be fading ...

 

[Luce NDs]

Tis a veiled expression like intuitive bones ... bonnie lasses? As in a piece of bone and a hank 've Eire ... if you can imagine or intuit that with your mother's pyrite ... fools imagination?

Tis a golden opportunity to die to the world ... as long as you don't go too far and can't get back to a bit of awareness ... it does seem the whole world is drifting into darkness though denying the occult arts ... opposing wisdom and connected essences ...

Scratched bones? The wails of scrimshaw ... the very though can draw the thoughts of Hannibal's critters ... memories of elephants ... approach of extinction ... given what we know appears to be fading ...

Can you believe that ... a state of autonomous naïveté ... nativity of thought as primal or aboriginal power? That's Ide ... Caesar! Cal' median? Funny working with the sub-conscience ... lesser understanding that's accrued ... developmental psychopathy?

Tis a pain to learn what humans are capable of doing for success ... some of us admit to failing comprehension in the field of human intelligence as it feints ... dodges and dances ...

 

[Delightful Life]

I have to say that, from my experience, while it's possible to seek out mystical experiences, that the success of seeking and finding versus not-seeking and finding is pretty equal.

in addition:
as per your BS do you view universe as dead and nonintelligent or alive and conscious? or something else?

 

[Luce NDs]

in addition:
as per your BS do you view universe as dead and nonintelligent or alive and conscious? or something else?

Really it fits ... goes all about us ... some claim it to be flat ... deflated souls still denying the north stars as part of their old BS ... Flat Earth Society's thing!

Tough souls learn nothing except through puzzling stories ... enigmatic myths that get thinker every day ... look at how thick things are getting in Washington ... a tub of another hew from Ottawa! Different buckets list oddly ...

Tell orthodoxy anything to force them into rethinking ...

 

[BetteTheRed]

in addition:
as per your BS do you view universe as dead and nonintelligent or alive and conscious? or something else?

Alive and conscious, and although not necessarily 'intelligent', I have a sense of 'benevolence'.

 

[Mendalla]

as per your BS do you view universe as dead and nonintelligent or alive and conscious?

The universe is definitely alive. It is a growing, changing, evolving universe.

As for conscious, to my mind, we (and whatever sapient beings might be around) are the conscious part of the universe. "We are the universe knowing itself," I think Sagan said, or something along those lines. So the universe as a whole is not a conscious being (that really gets us into panentheism) but it contains conscious beings within it that function as the conscious mind of the whole. Roughly.

That said, I've been re-engaging with process theology again and if I end up back in that camp, then there is definitely a universal consciousness known as God but it is also no longer pantheism, but panentheism, because that consciousness transcends and contains the universe.

 

[Luce NDs]

The universe is definitely alive. It is a growing, changing, evolving universe.

As for conscious, to my mind, we (and whatever sapient beings might be around) are the conscious part of the universe. "We are the universe knowing itself," I think Sagan said, or something along those lines. So the universe as a whole is not a conscious being (that really gets us into panentheism) but it contains conscious beings within it that function as the conscious mind of the whole. Roughly.

That said, I've been re-engaging with process theology again and if I end up back in that camp, then there is definitely a universal consciousness known as God but it is also no longer pantheism, but panentheism, because that consciousness transcends and contains the universe.

As far as the universe is concerned we're out of it as fallout ... thus the fallacy is logically an outside thing ... in some alien minds! We have signs of rejecting intelligence ... so minds are thus chosen to be meta observed or meta science varying from metaphysics that relates to fixings ...

Just back off a bit and look at what we've disturbed in a cloud ... tis odd in great spatial dimensions ... to say least as we are decreed to do as common people to be obliterated by powers ... is that obtuse ... since we didn't wish to see into it ... thus it is cloudy ... perhaps even a hairy situation of all a' gory ... bloody awful Taurus as a' theist being questioning about what is and isn't physical? Love is beyond hate ... driven by the curios ...

Generates a tempestuous mind that is pesky to those wishing not approach such thoughts ... disturbing? Perhaps a cloud of dissonant sol ... a singularity! Maid-up ...

 

[Luce NDs]

Is that ambiguous or just metamorphous creep? Plastic ...

 

[Pavlos Maros]

Just as all fruits are the same. There is no fundamental difference between Apple, Banana or Orange.
Just as all Medical disciplines are the same. There is no fundamental difference between Brain Surgery, Gastroenterology and Podiatry.Your response evidences a failure to notice nuance or a willing ignorance.

Lol. Seriously. Word play, semantics. With the intent to belittle and you a christian. Lol.You didn't like me using the saying "Much of a muchness," you asked me to expand on it. So I did and now you are criticizing that answer. "Much of a muchness" means very similar. The word "Same" means very similar. Perhaps I should have said all religions are similar. Put then you would have found fault with that.

Debate may be a battle of ideas. It is a battle nonetheless and, in light of your opening statement. No different from actual warfare. Surely all battles are the same?

Lol. And still the fight is all yours.

Asked for one doctrine you fail to provide it.

Yet supplied many things that are instructed/taught. Perhaps you missed them. Here is one in particular. That is instructed/taught Exodus 22:18 But no doubt you will discard it, in some way shape or form. Lol.

I am not throwing out the Bible as the word. Nor am I arguing against it being divinely inspired.
-------In point of fact it is not. The Bible most certainly contains doctrine and many texts of scripture are used as proofs for doctrine. The notion that every text of scripture is doctrine is hugely mistaken

So it isn't the word or divinely inspired. I understand christians like to cherry pick. But all scripture is god breathed so as such all counts.

Not quite. Dictionary.com said: doctrine

[dok-trin]

Synonyms
Examples
Word Origin

See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
noun
1.
a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government:
Catholic doctrines; the Monroe Doctrine.
2.
something that is taught; teachings collectively:
religious doctrine.
3.
a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject:
the doctrine of the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...

Yes quite. Read your own reply.
I've highlighted them for you. You felt the need to use a dictionary To try to belittle. Here is a few more, and an Encyclopedia too.
Merriam-webster: Definition of doctrine
1, : teaching, instruction
2 a, : something that is taught

Collins : Doctrine in British
1. a creed or body of teachings of a religious, political, or philosophical group presented for acceptance or belief; dogma
2. a principle or body of principles that is taught or advocated

Cambridge: doctrine ?

a belief or set of beliefs, especially political or religious ones, that are taughtand accepted by a particular group:

Websters: doctrine

1, something taught; teachings
2, something taught as the principles or creed of a religion, political party, etc.; tenet or tenets; belief; dogma

Encyclopedias - International Standard Bible Encyclopedia - Doctrine

DOCTRINE

dok'-trin:

Latin doctrina, from doceo, "to teach," denotes both the act of teaching and that which is taught; now used exclusively in the latter sense.

1. Meaning of Terms:

(1) In the Old Testament for

(a) leqach "what is received," hence, "the matter taught" (Deuteronomy 32:2; Job 11:4; Proverbs 4:2; Isaiah 29:24, the American Standard Revised Version "instruction");

(b) she-mu`ah, "what is heard" (Isaiah 28:9, the Revised Version (British and American) "message," the Revised Version, margin "report");

(c) mucar, "discipline" (Jet 10:8 margin), "The stock is a doctrine" (the Revised Version British and American) "instruction" of vanities, i. e. "The discipline of unreal gods is wood (is like themselves, destitute of true moral force" (BDB)).

(2) In the New Testament for

(i) didaskalia =

(a) "the act of teaching" (1 Timothy 4:13,16; 5:17; 2 Timothy 3:10,16), all in the Revised Version (British and American) "teaching";

(b) "what is taught" (Matthew 15:9; 2 Timothy 4:3). In some passages the meaning is ambiguous as between (a) and (b).

(ii) didache, always translated "teaching" in the Revised Version (British and American), except in Romans 16:17, where "doctrine" is retained in the text and "teaching" inserted in the margin =

(a) the act of teaching (Mark 4:2; Acts 2:42, the King James Version "doctrine");

(b) what is taught (John 7:16,17; Revelation 2:14,15,24, the King James Version "doctrine"). In some places the meaning is ambiguous as between (a) and (b) and in Matthew 7:28; Mark 1:22; Acts 13:12, the manner, rather than the act or matter of teaching is denoted, namely, with authority and power.

2. Christ's Teaching Informal:

The meaning of these words in the New Testament varied as the church developed the content of its experience into a system of thought, and came to regard such a system as an integral part of saving faith (compare the development of the meaning of the term "faith"):

(1) The doctrines of the Pharisees were a fairly compact and definite body of teaching, a fixed tradition handed down from one generation of teachers to another (Matthew 16:12, the King James Version "doctrine"; compare Matthew 15:9; Mark 7:7).

(2) In contrast with the Pharisaic system, the teaching of Jesus was unconventional and occasional, discursive and unsystematic; it derived its power from His personality, character and works, more than from His words, so that His contemporaries were astonished at it and recognized it as a new teaching (Matthew 7:28; 22:33; Mark 1:22,27; Luke 4:32). So we find it in the Synoptic Gospels, and the more systematic form given to it in the Johannine discourses is undoubtedly the work of the evangelist, who wrote rather to interpret Christ than to record His ipsissima verba (John 20:31).

3. Apostolic Doctrines:

The earliest teaching of the apostles consisted essentially of three propositions:

(a) that Jesus was the Christ (Acts 3:18);

(b) that He was risen from the dead (Acts 1:22; 2:24,32); and

(c) that salvation was by faith in His name (Acts 2:38; 3:16). While proclaiming these truths, it was necessary to coordinate them with Hebrew faith, as based upon Old Testament revelation.

The method of the earliest reconstruction may be gathered from the speeches of Peter and Stephen (Acts 2:14-36; 5:29-32; 7:2-53). A more thorough reconstruction of the coordination of the Christian facts, not only with Hebrew history, but with universal history, and with a view of the world as a whole, was undertaken by Paul. Both types of doctrine are found in his speeches in Acts, the former type in that delivered at Antioch (Acts 13:16-41), and the latter in the speeches delivered at Lystra (Acts 14:15-17) and at Athens (Acts 17:22-31). The ideas given in outline in these speeches are more fully developed into a doctrinal system, with its center removed from the resurrection to the death of Christ, in the epistles, especially in Galatians, Romans, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians. But as yet it is the theological system of one teacher, and there is no sign of any attempt to impose it by authority on the church as a whole. As a matter of fact the Pauline system never was generally accepted by the church. Compare James and the Apostolic Fathers.

4. Beginnings of Dogma:

In the Pastoral and General Epistles a new state of things appears. The repeated emphasis on "sound" or "healthy doctrine" (1 Timothy 1:10; 6:3; 2 Timothy 1:13; 4:3; Titus 1:9; 2:1), "good doctrine" (1 Timothy 4:6) implies that a body of teaching had now emerged which was generally accepted, and which should serve as a standard of orthodoxy. The faith has become a body of truth "once for all delivered unto the saints" (Jude 1:3). The content of this "sound doctrine" is nowhere formally given, but it is a probable inference that it corresponded very nearly to the Roman formula that became known as the Apostles' Creed.

A teacher is instructed to teach. Doctrine is a particular point of belief and there are quite a few of them because many are formed with particular points of view in play. Rendering the idea that all doctrine is the same also nonsensical. Doctrines referring to the person of Jesus Christ are not the same as doctrines referring to the practice and administration of sacraments.
Proverbs 4: 1-2 refer to parental instruction. Doctrine comes into play via the KJV and older translations of the scripture. Modern translations use the terms "precepts" or "learning" one could also use the word "advice." At any rate it does point more closely to point 1 in the definition above.
John 7: 16 also shows language issue older translations favouring doctrine while newer translations lean towards teaching. So yes, Jesus is teaching words that come from God but not every word that Jesus uttered falls into doctrinal position. When he refers to Peter as Satan he is not advancing the notion that Peter and Satan are identical. At most he is using the term figuratively to describe how Peter's objection runs contrary to Jesus' intention. Likewise when he refers to teachers of the law as "brood of vipers" he is not teaching that the teachers of the law are in fact serpents so much as he is figuratively describing how they are in opposition to God's intent.
We learn from those exchanges how Jesus feels about his mission and those who interfere with it. We are not instructed to call others Satan or serpents.

Yet they are all biblical doctrines, even sacraments.

There are very unpleasant texts contained in scripture. They are included for a purpose. That purpose is not always to emulate. Sometimes it is used to horrify.

And yet there are many unpleasant scriptures, where death is ordered. Are they not abhorrent. In the sermon on the mount Jesus is basically giving a commentary on the ten commandments. He is in fact Defining mosaic law.

And useful for teaching. It does not say that all of scripture is doctrine nor does it say that all of scripture presents positive instruction.

And yet people still follow it. Regardless of it being positive or negative.

Here he is speaking against false doctrine. At point of writing the New Testament did not exist. If, as you contend, he is referencing the Bible then Paul is speaking against teaching anything that we would consider New Testament. Since Paul routinely preaches Christ and him crucified he must be pointing to something that exists outside of the Hebrew scriptures at the time. Which defeats your claim.

What claim?. Whether he is using the OT, or speaking about what becomes the NT. he is still stating that only the bible must be taught. 1 tim 1:3 As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine, If it were outside the hebrew bible. Then it became scripture and god breathed the moment, the NT was compiled.

Or so translators think. I am not compelled that modern translators (who typically use homosexuality where older texts use "buggerers" or "sodomites". At issue, is whether or not Paul is addressing something which is consensual or assaultive.

The bible does not specify so either one could be true. So you can't argue for either position you just have to take the bible as literal.

Just the same way that all doctors who have molested patients are the same as doctors who have not. It doesn't matter whether they are true doctors or not all that matters is that they claim to be. Do you always paint with such a wide brush? Do they though? Dr. Andrew Wakefield follows the same book in the same way that Dr. Fred Volkmar does?

If they want to be seen differently Then they need to chose a different label. I.E. Call themselve something other christian and write a new holy book for themselves.
The label christianity comes with certain baggage it is not my place to sift through all the nonsense and bulls**t to get to the truth.

And you include the vague references intending to communicate that we are instructed to commit each of those atrocities as a regular part of our religious belief. Might you be wrong about that?

No. Because most do.

Given that so many Christians do not commit those atrocities, have in fact, stood against those atrocities and died fighting against the powers of the day which supported such atrocities.

And given the right reasons, they would commit those atrocities.

Yes atrocities are included in the Bible. Rare are they lifted up as desireable or faithful response. Certainly by the time one gets to the New Testament and Christianity is starting to coalesce one is seeing an evolution in how God desires the people of God to comport themselves in the world. Which is a differentiation rather than a sameness.

Yet christians commit atrocities in the name of there god and there holy book. I wonder why that is. Could it be a book of love as you call it has murder, kill, hate. etc. Within it.
Should it not only express love. There are over a 150 scriptures expressing acts of cruelty in the NT they should not be there, should they.[/quote]

 

[Luce NDs]

Thus we teach of Planet X ... the dark sphere ... tis seminal ... from which seminal words are wick 'd ... and why some convince themselves that Wikipedia is evil for it has information alien to them and they wish not to be taught such immaterial stuff to their tacked minds ... stuck as a stick in the mud ... righteous?

Virtue ... a step beyond reality as taught ... hollow philosophy? O... ???????