# Does God regularly reward rebellion?

## Recommended Posts

Yes you are. You wish it overthrown and replaced with an amended law.

You have a mighty strange definition of "rebellion," then. If it's possible to rebel against someone you support strongly, than sure, you're right.

I have and they say that scriptures, as the link above indicates, should not be read literally.

Have you ever known a Jew who reads the Bible literally. I have spoken to many and not one of them did.

I hope I have not given you the impression that I believe any of the scriptures. I use the literal words for debate only to show how foolish it is to try to do so.

I agree that taking the Bible literally is foolish, but you are not demonstrating it adequately. You are taking passages out of context and using them in ways that differ from the standard Christian and Jewish theological interpretations, and so Christians and Jews can easily reject your arguments. It is valuable to learn a good historical background behind the formation of the Bible to understand its meaning.

##### Share on other sites

Yes you are. You wish it overthrown and replaced with an amended law.

Amending a law $\ne$ Rebelling against a law.

##### Share on other sites

It's because you're stupid.

See, we even disagree on me being a prophet

You have a mighty strange definition of "rebellion," then. If it's possible to rebel against someone you support strongly, than sure, you're right.

I sort of see what he means, because in one sense of orthodoxy, anti-orthodoxy or maybe unorthodoxy is required for true original creativity. I always think of the quote, "before Abraham was, I am" as being very anti-tradition and anti-orthodoxy. It's just a little wise than that, because it can be taken to mean that it takes interpretation in the present to recognize the past. So for Abraham to be known and cited by those who would claim his authority, they have to exist in the present. This statement was however, I believe, taken as blasphemy - or so I've heard. Maybe revelational truth is by nature rebellion insofar as it overturns the false consciousness that precedes it by exposing it as false instead of true.

##### Share on other sites

I sort of see what he means, because in one sense of orthodoxy, anti-orthodoxy or maybe unorthodoxy is required for true original creativity. I always think of the quote, "before Abraham was, I am" as being very anti-tradition and anti-orthodoxy. It's just a little wise than that, because it can be taken to mean that it takes interpretation in the present to recognize the past. So for Abraham to be known and cited by those who would claim his authority, they have to exist in the present. This statement was however, I believe, taken as blasphemy - or so I've heard. Maybe revelational truth is by nature rebellion insofar as it overturns the false consciousness that precedes it by exposing it as false instead of true.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. "Before Abraham was, I am" is a claim to divinity:

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/sbrandt/iam.htm

##### Share on other sites

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. "Before Abraham was, I am" is a claim to divinity:

http://www.columbia....sbrandt/iam.htm

I checked out the link. It makes sense that it's a reference to divinity, but that doesn't contradict what I was saying. Think about the beginning of John where it says something like, "in the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God." It's like he's putting the creation before God's creation of it and then noting that the creation itself was God by being God's creation. If you think about the idea of linearity and hierarchy in citing Abraham or some other predecessor as the source of your authority, it puts a clove between you and the source of authority. So when Jesus puts "I am" BEFORE "Abraham was," it elevates present revelation over revelation through reference to the past. I think this could be 1) a reference to Holy Spirit as a more direct source of divine authority than scripture alone, 2) a general expression that the past is invoked in the present by the recipient of its revelations, as I said, as well as the reference you pointed out about simply being a general claim to divinity. Divinity has so many ideas contained in it, though, I think you could extrapolate any number of interpretations and applications from general statements about it. It's like most philosophy that involves general concepts like truth, power, knowledge, etc.

##### Share on other sites

So you give a hypothetical to be discussed and then refuse your own premise on the basis that it is not real?

It is said that intelligent people can discuss things they do not believe in.

Can’t you?

Is it impossible for you to do the reasonable thing here and assume what is being stated is being stated for the sake of discussion and not because it is a belief that I hold. Must I REALLY preface my statements about the Bible with "not that any of this crap is actually true but for the sake of argument".

Regards

DL

Supposedly, she was just tired and didn't feel like walking all the way to the back of the bus. When you call doing the right thing rebellion against corruption, it construes your action as using fire against fire. Evil feeds on itself this way. The only way out of the "burning ring of fire" (to use Johnny Cash's words) is to choose good actions and do them pro-actively without getting seduced into fighting against provocation, imo. Provoking people into fighting against evil is an evil tactic to bring people down to your level; didn't you see the Empire Strikes Back?

Proverbs 3:12

For whom the LORD loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.

For evil to grow, all good people need do is nothing.

I try to live by the above.

Some take correction without effort if they are not too deep into indoctrination.

Some need a harder, tough love approach. I use the character that I have. That is all I can do.

I do not overly berate and walk away from someone who does not take to either love or tough love. I do not suffer fools well and do not want to make a fool of myself by knocking my head against a wall or resistance caused by brain washing.

Regards

DL

Regards

DL

You have a mighty strange definition of "rebellion," then. If it's possible to rebel against someone you support strongly, than sure, you're right.

I have and they say that scriptures, as the link above indicates, should not be read literally.

I agree that taking the Bible literally is foolish, but you are not demonstrating it adequately. You are taking passages out of context and using them in ways that differ from the standard Christian and Jewish theological interpretations, and so Christians and Jews can easily reject your arguments. It is valuable to learn a good historical background behind the formation of the Bible to understand its meaning.

Yes. And a good place to start is knowing that nothing in it is original.

It all comes from Egypt and Sumer it seems. Myths are older than we think.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x84m5k_2007doc-zone-pagan-christ-1-of-3_news

Regards

DL

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. "Before Abraham was, I am" is a claim to divinity:

http://www.columbia....sbrandt/iam.htm

Perhaps it is saying that ---my consciousness can see the story clearly and I can judge it’s value.

These prisoners, to my thinking, are doing just that when they speak of what their God has done. They take the right to judge because they are judging from both of their times and to do so, they must be able to think independently of dogma. The I am, meaning there is no one before me and my thinking, must come out of their ego and judge.

Regards

DL

##### Share on other sites

It is said that intelligent people can discuss things they do not believe in.

Can't you?

Is it impossible for you to do the reasonable thing here and assume what is being stated is being stated for the sake of discussion and not because it is a belief that I hold. Must I REALLY preface my statements about the Bible with "not that any of this crap is actually true but for the sake of argument".

I think you've misunderstood. Ringer was referring to what you were doing: quoting the Bible to make a point, and then discounting the Bible as fairy tales when it was used to refute your point. You can't have it both ways.

## Create an account

Register a new account