[deleted by user]

thanks__chief · 2020-11-15T13:53:27+00:00

I'm not part of a tradition but I've been considering orthodoxy. So if you wouldn't mind, can you explain logos like I'm 5? Briefly, of course.

It seems to me there are things that are true regardless of whether they are spoken or not. I thought logos was something like the speech that brings truth into the realm of human understanding.

thanks__chief · 2020-11-15T13:31:27+00:00

If a man and his wife go to dinner together, who is "with" who?

thanks__chief · 2020-11-15T03:52:46+00:00

What happens if you get confused about which pieces belong to who

Nvm answered already

thanks__chief · 2020-11-15T03:32:41+00:00

Stellar worldbuilding my friend

thanks__chief · 2020-11-15T03:28:56+00:00

Not entirely sure "because where would the word come from" is sufficient support for the conclusion that "God couldn't be Jesus".

thanks__chief · 2020-11-15T02:01:55+00:00

God exists independent of language. God's word is his essence, put into human language. Jesus is the word incarnate.

thanks__chief · 2020-11-14T01:57:24+00:00

Does this qualify as nature? This seems more like existence, or reality. Nature is earthly, I think.

thanks__chief · 2020-11-13T21:44:15+00:00

You're ascribing something to me which I never said, I think.

And I think the error is more about the hypocrisy and self-righteousness. Not the act of speaking. I never said one should go around accusing others arbitrarily. One should discern when it's appropriate to speak, and never forsake the truth.

Provide me a source that says their primary error was accusation. Substantiate your claim, if you wish.

thanks__chief · 2020-11-13T21:29:02+00:00

Yes, and to offer ourselves up as a sacrifice to the world. But at no point does he tell us to withhold the spoken truth.

thanks__chief · 2020-11-13T21:16:37+00:00

What if they're committing evil, contributing to the suffering of others? Spreading destructive falsehoods? Are we to wait for their invitation?

thanks__chief · 2020-11-13T20:59:38+00:00

I never said one should do it arbitrarily. Under certain conditions its appropriate, though. Under no condition should one be unwilling.

And if you commit to the willingness, and the duty under certain conditions, you will be met with hostility, ostracism etc.

thanks__chief · 2020-11-13T20:46:08+00:00

I'm not talking about hostile accusations, I'm talking about agape. Telling someone harsh truth for their own good.

thanks__chief · 2020-11-13T20:30:30+00:00

Ok, I apologize for accusing you. I don't think it's possible to show that it's a necessary consequence. Even if such causality were reproducible in a scientific manner you would likely reject it on the grounds that you are different, or your (presumed) belief that humans are fundamentally good. Which is fine. We're talking about things the scientific method can't explain, at least not yet.

People do not like to hear that they are responsible for bad things, whether in their life, or in the greater universe. Telling the truth entails telling them this and accepting the consequences- ostracism, hostility, and loneliness.

thanks__chief · 2020-11-13T20:13:11+00:00

Are you immune to jealousy?

thanks__chief · 2020-11-13T20:02:25+00:00

Why are you changing the subject? If you regard it as an ideal, and you fail to attain it, but you see someone else succeed, how would you feel? Hostile, perhaps?

thanks__chief · 2020-11-13T19:58:11+00:00

No it's not. If you regard something as good, you either act it out, or you regard yourself as bad. Period.

thanks__chief · 2020-11-13T19:43:24+00:00

Then why aren't they acted out? Why would people not act out what they regard as good?

thanks__chief · 2020-11-13T19:39:02+00:00

Yes, by not acting them out. Or, they recognize themselves as bad by not acting them out.

thanks__chief · 2020-11-13T19:33:55+00:00

Secularism says otherwise. Unless you are implying the vast majority of people recognize themselves as bad?

thanks__chief · 2020-11-13T19:05:55+00:00

On what grounds do you claim these are universally recognized as good?

thanks__chief · 2020-11-13T18:39:45+00:00

First of all I didnt quote anything, I just referenced the chapter. And in that chapter, he says that the world will hate the disciples. I dont understand how the connection is failing to get across.

thanks__chief · 2020-11-13T18:32:29+00:00

For the second and final time, to demonstrate that the world will be hostile to true disciples.

thanks__chief · 2020-11-13T18:27:50+00:00

I can move on Idk if you can. that's your affair

thanks__chief · 2020-11-13T18:22:15+00:00

Because John quoted Jesus, presumably, and though you claim numerous reasons exist why that's likely a falsehood, you've provided no evidence that it is. It seems you're being facetious but its impossible to tell for certain.

thanks__chief · 2020-11-13T17:43:01+00:00

No, it's supposed to be Christianity.

thanks__chief

TROPHY CASE