Hi minesadorada:

Now does your reasoning carry through that perhaps you would be going after yhwh had you been born 1000 years ago?

I may not have this right but it seems that your reasoning to come up with this conclusion is mostly based upon the idea that one might be apt to go with the god(s) of the time had one been born at that time. If that is the case then perhaps I should now be a Christian, being in North American, or perhaps a Muslim if I were in the Middle East, and so on.

But I'm not a Christian primarily because I study, and now tend to think in terms of, Hebraic thought of the ancient Middle East. That is very different from the 'now' and the 'where' of North America, virtually the opposite.

I've never been one to follow the crowd for some reason I suppose because the crowd doesn't think very logically sometimes. And religious authority often stinks because most of the time it doesn't have the might and the power of righteousness backing it up.

The original evidence is what I see in front of me not too much unlike a Buddhist acquaintance. We do differ on the the source of what we see in front of us though. But we both try to come to grips with the goodness and the evil that comprises that evidence before us with regard to living existence.

I believe the philosophy, if not necessarily the conclusions to the above.


I agree. Robertson made it worse by saying God told him who would win the election but also said "Don't tell anyone who it is."


]

And you would probably be right not to share. I recommend the following book to you: "The Varieties of Religious Experience" by William James. It's not a book which knocks or mocks any faith. It attempts to explain man's relationship to God through them.

I will look for the book you recommend by James. I am aware of who he is. I have several philosophy books and I thought I might have his 'Varieties of Religious Experience', but didn't. It shouldn't be hard to come by.

Years ago, I attended a Bible College, and only wanted to study the Bible. But, it being a college, it was a serious academic grind. Yes, they gave me grief over my bad spelling then also, though I was victorious. Plus I was required to take 'Philosophy' among other subjects I detested.

I hated and dreaded the thought of taking philosophy. But I had to. Got an excellent teacher. And lo and behold I found out that I had encountered most of the philosophies being addressed in my daily encounters of discussion and debate with people at work. And I found out that I had a philosophy of my own. But now I had a name to call them and some understanding where they originate from. Thus, I was surprised to find I liked philosophy after all. So, I said all that to say, I will read the book and enjoy it Im sure. Though I also know I will find some things, if not most things, that I disagree with.

Robertsons claim that God told him not tell anyone is a sure sign that he didn't recieve any message from God. I am afraid he has fallen into the trap of pride and power. It is easy for the Christian to do. And I don't doubt his faith. But being a popular figure and seen by so many makes him want to be the 'one who God talks to', as though God spoke to him first, if not exclusively.

In reality, every Christian has equal access to God. No Christian anywhere has a more access availability than any other. So, whenever a Christian encounters a preacher who says something like, 'God has told me that you need to give so much money to the Church', then you best get out of there. Because I assure you that is not God, that is the man. If God wants you to give so much, He will tell you.

Quantrill

It doesn't help me just to state you think my conclusion doesn't make sense without explaining why you believe so. The least you could do is offer a selection you think I left out that does makes sense to you. I honestly thought my selection on a physical firmament was based on the Bible account as well as any could.

If you believe my thoughts on translation issues are incorrect, why and how so? Nothing in the Bible can be trusted any more than anything else when trying to read it with an open mind. An open minded reading starts with it may be true, but has to move onto what have we got to back this up, is there anything that contradicts this and a weighing of positive and negative evidence.

If you know something that demonstrates what the firmament is or isn't I would like to know.

Reread. I explained why. "...as, according to you, nothing written in the Bible can be trusted to be what was written."

I already explained to you what the firmament is. So, what is the point of asking me again?

Quantrill