The other thing is their constant, mis-leading "double-speak". Did you see where Liberal Nancy Pelosi stated with the repeal of 'Obamacare' "America will get sick again"?

The mis-leading lie here is that America was "sick" before "Obamacare", then was "healed" after 'Obamacare' was passed, but is now sick with its dismantling

Incredible how these snake-lying Liberals try to get away with these obfuscations. I just hope that most intelligent Americans can see through this garbage

https://www.facebook.com/PaulJoseph...

<1. If naturalism is true, morality is relative.

2. Morality is not relative.

3. Therefore, naturalism is false. >

We are a passionate, drunk society.>

Very good post. True/real spirituality.

Word for this overactive thought life , in Indian scriptures , is 'Rajas'.

'Rajas' is overactive mind and pursuit of enjoyment.

'Tamas' is sloth/laziness/criminality.

'Satva' is purified, harmonious mind.

When we follow teachings of Jesus/nisargadatta/ramana/Krishna , 'be still ...' , overactive mind experiences serenity and happiness of stillness....

'Sober logic' that you talk about , in Indian scriptures , it is called 'discrimination dispassion' - using logic/discrimination we learn to develop dispassion.

You are intelligent/sharp/wise.

Please reconsider the request I had made.

The other Christians on this site think that I am a <fake Christian> and that I <don't get it>, so you may want to consult with them about how to make sense of spirituality via Christianity.

I've had conversations here with <chancho>, <ohio> and <optimal play> and some of them have been of a spiritual nature. If you want to know my thoughts on various spiritual subjects, you can start here Big Pawn chessforum (kibitz #1370)

I asked what do we have to do to please God.

There are a few off topic posts that clutter the discussion but just scroll right by them. I would say there are maybe 4 or 5 pages of serious spiritual discussion.

You can also find discussions like these on <playground player's> forum, but not much there from me, and <optimal play's> forum going back a few pages. It's recent so there isn't much searching to do.

In general I focus on how self deception works, the nature of evil, sin, wisdom, revealed spiritual knowledge, pride, taking on the spirit of satan, of God, living a sinless life, how to have real freedom, how to recognize satan's voice vs God's voiceless voice and so on.

If you really want to know what I think, then read those posts. They are all substantive and do not wander all over the place. Then, if you find something interesting you can ask me about it.

Nothing in the Bible indicates that to me.>

We need the Spirit of God to understand.

<12What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us>

The Spirit teaches us.

<13This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words.>

Spiritual truths cannot be discerned in any other way that through the Spirit revealing them to us.

<14The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.>

1 Corinthians 2

In particular, this last verse is a response to this:

Note this too:

<14The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.>

The Holy Spirit gives us wisdom, truth, and it can only be understood if you have the Spirit and the truth is revealed to you.

When we rely on the intellect instead, we end up not knowing the truth from the lies. This is why thousands of years of intellectuals have divided the church into so many hundreds(!) of denominations.

Only a group of intellectuals, without revelation from the Spirit, can read Genesis and come to completely different, contradictory conclusions about what is being said.

The kingdom of God is within us, and the Spirit is within us if we are born again of God, and therefore the truth is within us.

If this is true, then it makes sense to seek the truth about God, those mysterious spiritual truths, by seeking within and knowing thyself, rather than swallowing Christian Dogma whole, like a goldfish.

I think that the Christian Church is divided into hundreds of denominations by over intellectualizing about the bible.

Intellectualizing about the bible gets in the way of the Spirit revealing spiritual truths. In the absence of spiritual revelation, Christians, in honest pursuit of God and wisdom, seek to learn these truths from other people. They put their faith in their leaders and we end up with hundreds of denominations.

Most Christians think that to question their denomination is to simply reject God, so they won't tolerate or entertain any questions seriously, because they think they will go to hell if they do.

But isn't this exactly what, let's say, all the Catholics need to do in order to really find God and truth in your opinion?

As a matter of fact, it would just be the Catholics but it would also include every other denomination other than your own (I know you are somewhat non-denominational).

Of course, to highlight this absurd position I should also point out that this perspective can be applied to all the other denominations. Catholics should encourage Protestants to entertain serious questions about their doctrine so that they can come to realize the truth (that Catholicism is true) and find enlightenment.

Nope. We = Paul and Sosthenes. cf 1 Cor. 1:1.

<<14The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.>

The Holy Spirit gives us wisdom, truth, and it can only be understood if you have the Spirit and the truth is revealed to you. >

That's true of all writings, secular and holy. I don't attribute different understanding of secular writings to be based on whether the readers have the Holy Spirit.

<The kingdom of God is within us, and the Spirit is within us if we are born again of God, and therefore the truth is within us. >

And yet Jesus and the apostles went to people without the Spirit in them, taught them, and expected them to understand.

<If this is true, then it makes sense to seek the truth about God, those mysterious spiritual truths, by seeking within and knowing thyself, rather than swallowing Christian Dogma whole, like a goldfish. >

It's not true, so this is moot.

<I think that the Christian Church is divided into hundreds of denominations by over intellectualizing about the bible. >

I think it's divided by not believing what the Bible plainly says. I think much of the difference is as obvious as the Legendary Alabama ID's being free, according to the plain language we can read, and <still> seeing someone conclude "They are not free." This happens in the secular and religious worlds alike.

<But isn't this exactly what, let's say, all the Catholics need to do in order to really find God and truth in your opinion?>

I think what they need to do, as I did, is find a Bible, read it, and believe what it plainly says. Instead, the vast majority of Catholics have very little knowledge of the Bible, and when they encounter those parts that might suggest the RCC is wrong, run it through an a priori RCC Can't Be Wrong Filter and then believing what is left.

<As a matter of fact, it would just be the Catholics but it would also include every other denomination other than your own (I know you are somewhat non-denominational). >

I think everyone in every denomination needs to find a Bible, read it, and believe what it plainly says, without running it through a filter that says "My church can't be wrong.".

<Of course, to highlight this absurd position I should also point out that this perspective can be applied to all the other denominations. Catholics should encourage Protestants to entertain serious questions about their doctrine so that they can come to realize the truth (that Catholicism is true) and find enlightenment.>

We are only talking about spiritual truths.

<<The kingdom of God is within us, and the Spirit is within us if we are born again of God, and therefore the truth is within us. >

And yet Jesus and the apostles went to people without the Spirit in them, taught them, and expected them to understand.>

Jesus was there.

As far as the other points we seem to agree so I'll move on to this:

<plainly read the bible>

I agree with this, but I noticed that even people who plainly read the bible will hide behind the <GREEK SECRETS> when it's necessary to defend their dogma from critical thought.

<The Holy Spirit gave the apostles and a few others in the first century those things. They took the gospel out, and shared it to people without the spirit, and expected those people to understand what was being taught>

The bible doesn't say that only the apostles would receive the Spirit.

<<The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.>>

This is the crux of what I'm saying. Without the Spirit, spiritual truths cannot be understood. This is because we discern the truths through the Spirit, as the bible plainly tells us.

Ummmmmmmm. I sort of agree. I think I've done that myself before. But it's a very nuanced point that I don't think enters into the big ticket items that tend to divide the Christian world.

<The bible doesn't say that only the apostles would receive the Spirit.>

Who's the "we" of 1 Corinthians 2?

<Without the Spirit, spiritual truths cannot be understood. This is because we discern the truths through the Spirit, as the bible plainly tells us. >

Jesus and the apostles went to the lost people, the unsaved people, the people without the Spirit, and taught them. Jesus and the apostles expected those people to understand what they were being taught.

<Given that this is clear and plain, why would you deny it? >

<We are only talking about spiritual truths. >

Jesus was there.

<<We are only talking about spiritual truths. >

We are talking about human beings, who are irrational and prejudiced and not interested in the truth, in secular or spiritual matters.>

No, <OhioChessFan: <ohio: <Do you believe that the Holy Spirit reveals spiritual truth to us> No, not directly.> <BP: Why don't you believe that?>

We are talking about the Holy Spirit revealing spiritual truth.

<In context, the apostles and a few people in the first century received those spiritual revelations.>

The bible does not say that this only applies to the people of the 1st century or the apostles.

<1 Corinthians 2:14 ESV

The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.>

Man's natural spirit cannot discern spiritual truths. You need the Holy Spirit for that.

There are no limitations to the 1st century. That's just Christian dogma.

Let's look at this again:

<14The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.>

Unpack that and we have this:

The Spirit gives us things.
The person without the Holy Spirit cannont understand these things. The person with the Holy Spirit can understand these things.

<and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit>

Spiritual truths are understood only through the Spirit. The Spirit has to reveal the truth to you.

<14The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God>

Nothing about the first century in any of this.

Are those without the Spirit expected to understand Spiritual truths as you say?

<The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness>

Now, you said that the people who do not have the spirit are expected to understand spiritual truths, but that is not what the bible says.

When one is born of God and becomes a child of God, then he has a new nature, the nature of God and his old nature, the nature of Satan is no more. When you have God's nature and are born again of God, you have God's Spirit and his spirit is holy. It is this Spirit of Truth that reveals spiritual truth to those born of God.

If you are not born of God you do not have this Spirit of Truth, and therefore you have no truth in you as you are of your father the Devil.

<Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. 8He that committeth sin is of the devil> 1 John 3:7-8

Thank you

However, my request to you was slightly different.

My request was/is : ramana maharishi says there is no difference between 'bhagvad Geeta' and bible - both are perfect description of The Reality/The Truth/Uncaused Cause.

I want to tell my interpretation of teachings of ramana and other saints/sages of India and request you and others to (I) find any contradictions/holes

(ii) tell me where my interpretation differs from your interpretation.

<Jesus was there. >

Meaning Jesus <is> the Spirit in the Flesh.

<ohio: Regardless, after Jesus left the scene, the apostles went to the lost and taught them the truth, and expected those lost people without the Spirit to understand them.>

I have already replied to this comment above.

If we go by the bible, then there is no reason to think that unless one has the Spirit in them that they will understand spiritual truths. I will focus just on this part so that we don't go all over the place. Then I will show you how we need to alter the verse in order to validate your assertion (which you asserted again).

<The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness>

You need the Spirit to reveal the truth to you. Why? Because

<and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit>

What you seem to be saying is this:

<The person without the Spirit does accept the things that come from the Spirit of God and does not consider them foolishness>

<Jesus and the apostles went to the lost people, the unsaved people, the people without the Spirit, and taught them. Jesus and the apostles expected those people to understand what they were being taught.>

Jesus went to the people without the Spirit and expected them to understand.

This is the essence of what you said. If I am wrong, please correct me. Now juxtapose that with this:

<The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness>

What you said is directly at odd with what the bible says.

Not to us. To the apostles and a few other people in the first century. Paul was a part of that "us", so he was free to use that word. They took those truths, and preached them. They wrote them down. Some people that don't have the Spirit heard or read those words God revealed to the apostles and a few other people in the first century, understood and believed them. Some didn't.