even the most brilliant people can be lead like sheep to follow a false prophet.
and you in a way answered my question, even with the video proof showing the UFO come, you still think that prophet Yahweh is a sham. Chances are if mohammed came in todays time and claimed he walked into a cave and these ufo’s inspired him (ufo’s are modern day angels and god’s) to write a book.
Do you think he’d get any followers? People generally are more discerning now, even if they follow an ancient faith.
BUT, you throw god, allah or an angel into that cave and chances are suddenly you’d think about believing it right?
I don’t understand why this topic can even be argued. With in the methodology that PoR operates he is right. This is not a question of if women should be ministers but merely a statement that if they are a strict follower of the Bible then they cannot be.
Arguing different methodologies is stupid because within each methodology you are both right.
My dismissal of “prophet yahweh†in spite of a mere video did nothing to further your point, because I do not dismiss him for the reasons you provide. There are much more important factors involved than the fact that it is 2005, and that I am apparently more “discerning†than I would have been, had I been born a millennium or two ago. It is a total generalization to say that people were less “discerning†back then, and I will bet you have no proof to back such a statement up. It’s not like people went off & believed every “prophet†that came along. Rather, people evaluated them in light of various factors. Who is the person claiming to have received the message? What is his history/reputation? What is the message? Etc…
In line with your method of argumentation, how about I reverse it and tell you that if “prophet yahweh†appeared two thousand years ago, he would have as few believers then as he does today, because his message is empty. So what if he can summon UFO’s? That means nothing. And where do you go off saying that a UFO is a modern day angel/god? Nonetheless, I’ll go along with that. Let’s go ahead & say that he alleged to have summoned angels 2000 years ago. So what? What did they tell him? Who is he? What is his history? What is the general message he is conveying to the people? If he made the exact same claim 2000 years ago that he makes today (with angels instead), I would bet that he would have just as few followers then as he does now, if any at all. Your argument still makes no sense to me, because you are comparing apples & oranges. No…you are comparing apples & meatloaf.
Look at the “heaven’s gate” cult. They believed that the comet was a UFO that would suck them aboard then destroy the earth. They ammassed a sizeable amount of followers and had they not drank their kool-aid they probably would’ve ammassed more followers.
or how about this, let’s reverse Joseph Smith with Mohammed. Mohammed started Islam in New York and doesn’t have nearly as many followers as Islam because it’s older.
Joseph Smith is looked upon even by PC secularists as a “great prophet”. Had you been born in that area (like you were for Islam) you would be a practicing mormon and believe that Joe Smith was the greatest prophet. (or equal prophet depending on the sect of mormonism.)
we’re people more discerning back then? generally I think that it’s the same as it is now. Most people lack common sense and when they search for spiritual answers they turn to controlling religions for those answers. Answers that are a hollow shell of what they should be.
My point was that if you want a relationship with god, you can have a relationship with god, you don’t need to rely on hearsay of christ, mohammed, moses, or smith.
I also think more ufo religions will develop as they develop their plan for an afterlife. That’s because people are just as gullible now as they were then.
ok…here’s what im trying to get across to you. you can’t just replace one prophet for another, and make comparisons in that way. you can’t replace mohammad with p. yahweh, you can’t replace mohammad with joseph smith, etc. they are completely different people with completely different messages. the fact that both mohammad and smith were cconsidered “great prophets” does not make them exchangeable. there is absolutely no comparison. there are personalities and messages behind those prophets, not just the name “prophet” backing them up.
wow…what a huge generalization. you’re saying that if mohammad came about in joseph smiths place, i would believe him…and thus, i would have believed in joseph smith had i been around ny at that time? that’s so ridiculous i’m having trouble even fathoming that you could think that the core of my entire belief system is so simple. how can you have any idea what i would or would not believe in? to me, there is no comparison between joseph smith & mohammad. and i mean no disrespect to joseph smith. i’m just saying that they were totally different people, with different personalities, different reputations, different messages, different books…just completely different. i’m still totally in shock. are you for reals or did i misunderstand you? i’m seriously hoping that the latter is true.
you cannot dismiss all religions as having “hollow” answers until you have truly and critically researched all religions. perhaps you have become disheartened with some religions you have studied. that does not speak for all religions. it’s cool if you choose not to follow a religion, but you shouldn’t pass generalizations for all religions when you do not have the requisite knowledge & understanding.
likewise, you cannot make generalizations about all prophetic messages unless you have honestly and thoroughly studied all prophetic messages. yes, you can have a direct relationship with God, whether or not you have a religion. it’s fine if you choose not to believe in them. but don’t insult them based on what you do not know.
EVERY text is interpreted based upon the ideas and backgrounds of its readers/writers. You read a text based upon WHO you are. Here is a simple, popular example from grammar class. (Correctly punctuate this sentence):
This post is meant for PoR on his last statement on page 1.
So… lets just say I say, “I am God, and I am the way to God and only through me can you achieve total salvation for I am Lasko and it is in me the only Mediator to God shall you be redeemed”
Does this mean you shall worship me? Or is your argument for this that Jesus said his comment first centuries ago? And if this is the case then I ask you this… What about the religions before Christianity for there were serveral before Christianity came along. My point is that just because someone says they are the “way” to light does not mean they are the way to god.
Well, I guess we see where you come from and who you are by that response. (The class Jokester). P.S. You’re failing grammar.
But the point was that you can read that line various ways, depending on your point of view.
“Woman, without her man, is nothing.”
“Woman, without her, man is nothing.”
The meaning radically changes based on where you place the second comma. Like any text, the Bible too has been subject to the interpreters who have constructed “Their” meanings from and around the text. Thus, while the Bible is a vastly heteroglossic and multivocal work, traditional readers of the text (who have mostly been men) interpret the text in ways that endorse and justify their points of view. Another example is the Quran, which is a radically egalitarian text, but the interpreters and commentaries have created readings that reinforce male dominance. I like how the Laura (Riding) Jackson explains how this past (full of only male interpretation of the holy texts) needs revision. She explained that, as they are, the current interpretations of holy texts fail to fully explain humanity: “While the men who told these stories were of ‘honest purpose,’ they were also ‘more man-minded than human-minded.’†Quoted in James Oldham, “The Telling: Laura (Riding) Jackson’s Project for a Whole Human Discourse.â€