Mark C

I think this is a wonderful picture of who we are inside.

All the questions and answers I have asked and answered before the new format, how do I see them the way I used to?

When love wins, everybody wins. Both sides. Is this not how God shows his true power, how he wishes to set up rule and government on earth? It is not to be confused with man's way of ruling which involves the repression of those who oppose him. God loves people into submission, to the point that we WANT to serve him. It's in our best interests. Is this not the plan and purpose of God, to undermine selfishness and bitterness and envy and strife with the gentle cleansing flow of love?

"They pierced my hands and feet."

Of course you could argue that maybe it wasn't written by David the king, or maybe it was written after Jesus' death, and men of old made it look like it had been written in David's time. But you have no way of knowing that other than historical record, and the historical record in question is the Bible, in this case the book of Psalms and the Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John. The point is you could say, 'how do you know the Bible was a true record,' but then you have to ask the same question about everything you've ever read in any book. To that I would put to you, how do you know the Civil war happened? You weren't there. No one alive was there. Yet you believe it because you read it in a history book. So let's move on from the idea of disregarding the Bible just because you want to, and accept that it is at least as reliable a source as any textbook you've read in school.

Now. "They pierced my hands and feet." Whose feet, David's? No. David never had his hands and feet pierced. Was David even aware of a punishment such as crucifixion? Probably not. Crucifixion was a Roman means of capitol punishment. Jews usually put to death by stoning. When David wrote this, how could he have known Jesus, the one he is foretelling, would be crucified and his hands and feet pierced?

It is elegant and simple. I offer this for consideration as something very real you can place your faith in.

"They pierced my hands and feet."

Of course you could argue that maybe it wasn't written by David the king, or maybe it was written after Jesus' death, and men of old made it look like it had been written in David's time. But you have no way of knowing that other than historical record, and the historical record in question is the Bible, in this case the book of Psalms and the Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John. The point is you could say, 'how do you know the Bible was a true record,' but then you have to ask the same question about everything you've ever read in any book. To that I would put to you, how do you know the Civil war happened? You weren't there. No one alive was there. Yet you believe it because you read it in a history book. So let's move on from the idea of disregarding the Bible just because you want to, and accept that it is at least as reliable a source as any textbook you've read in school.

Now. "They pierced my hands and feet." Whose feet, David's? No. David never had his hands and feet pierced. Was David even aware of a punishment such as crucifixion? Probably not. Crucifixion was a Roman means of capitol punishment. Jews usually put to death by stoning. When David wrote this, how could he have known Jesus, the one he is foretelling, would be crucified and his hands and feet pierced?

It is elegant and simple. I offer this for consideration as something very real you can place your faith in.

Without faith it is impossible to please God. For he that comes to God must believe that he is, and believe that he is a rewarder of those who diligently seek him. That's Hebrews 11:6

God will not prove it to you. A man in hell asked Abraham, "send someone to preach to my family so they won't have to come to this awful place." Abraham's answer was, "They have the word and the prophets. If they do not believe them, they will not believe even if someone is raised from the dead to speak to them."

What is a leaf without a branch? A thought without a purpose? Is there any reason for a man such as I to invite derision by preaching the gospel of Christ to a world of unbelievers if there is no hope?

I have seen hope. I know Peace. The Father of us all in Heaven wishes for all his children to be saved, and his arms are open. Anyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.

Jesus lived and died for us, and rose again to show his power and to show the power of the next life. Some will rise to eternal life. And some will rise to condemnation. But all will rise. Jesus rose so that we might see just what will happen to all of us, and he rose in our plain sight so we would know who to believe. "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father but by me."

Either he was a lunatic, or everything he said was true, and Jesus told us he was the only way.

"I am the door for the sheep. He that comes into the sheepfold any other way is a thief and a robber. I am come that you might have life, and have it more abundantly."

here in answers, not the mythological kind that lives under a bridge. (or the Tolkien version that wears clothes and puts Hobbit memorabilia in his pocket)

I get to the point when people act like they don't see me walking and won't move over I just head straight for them. How do you handle this situation? Sometimes it makes me plain angry. I speak up to make a point of saying hello in such a way as to draw attention like 'hey, hello. How's it going?' Any thoughts?

My life is good, but I still go through times of unhappiness. I can't even think of a good reason for it. It seems like everything is basically good. But I don't feel happy a lot, just for moments at a time.

Women are great, but they drive me nuts. More moments of happiness, nothing sustained. Even church and God are good, but nothing just works for long periods of time. Unhappiness still seems to follow me and attach itself unless I keep myself busy or something. Feel like I'm still just spinning in circles to keep myself from lying down and fading away. Like running in place to keep myself from freezing to death.

From Plato's forms, he contends that an object can not be measured to absolute accuracy, and therefore it is the idea that represents an object that is the only perfect representation of what that object is. The object will change shape, size, density over time. Yet the idea of the object is the same always, and is impervious to time, and therefore, philosophically speaking, a truth of the object, because it never changes and is always true under all circumstances.

My question is, while it is true that if you measure the side of an object as four inches long, that will probably change over time. But when it comes to AMOUNT, the idea of amount can be fixed. You may have two objects of differing sizes sitting side by side, and lets say they are both grains of sand. Or to make it fun, let's say one is a grain of sand, and the other is a rock. The rock is much larger, but the grain of sand is basically an extremely small rock. Certainly we can measure a difference in size, shape, and weight. But there are still two separate, individual objects sitting there. The number two, then, as an idea, is not changeable, even if the objects change over time, there are still two objects.

Is this not an example of the forms in reality, or in the visible, physical realm? Where we can not quantify amount, as in two equal cups of sand, equality can not be verified, but in respect to two separate cups of sand, they can never be more or less than two of them? Therefore representing in front of our eyes the 'form' of two?

Passing by a lab on the street, I read a sign that says, 'Any lab test, any time.' I think about going in and asking if they can test me to see if I'm real.

I got this idea from studying the idea of forms from the Greek philosopher, Plato. His basic idea about reality is that what is real is not what is seen, but it is the form of the thing, the invisible thing which embodies the physical thing. It is for example the difference between being able to say I weigh two hundred pounds and saying that I exist. You can measure the one, but to prove I exist, when in fact there was a time I didn't exist, and a time I may not exist once more, is trickier.

His example which I understand the best is the example of a square. You can measure a square's sides and say they are equal, but how precise can your measurement be? You may be able to measure to the very best of your ability with our best, most precise instruments, but no matter how accurately you measure that square, it is the idea of a square with four equal sides, not the square itself which you draw, that is perfect. You can not draw or build a square in the physical realm that is as close to perfection as the idea of four equal sides.

So what kind of answer can you give me if you worked at the lab? Can you test me, or anything for that matter, to prove that it's real? You can show me mass, quantify it, measure it, you can compare it to accepted norms or other objects, but can you tell me why I am real or not?

In my very limited study of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, it seems that the ancient Greeks all but ruled out the viability of the relativistic view. (the idea that the right answer to a question is 'relative' to the circumstances, and changes according to a person's perspective) Is there any serious philosophical pursuit today that still embraces a relativistic view, and do any serious students of philosophy follow it?

I feel it is the season of instruction we are in, to know the Kingdom of God, to differentiate it from the kingdoms of the earth, to see into the spirit, and see as God would see, rather than as a limited man. I have a lot of ideas about this, but I want to hear what others have on their hearts regarding the Kingdom of God.

The basis of my thoughts has been a parable of Jesus'. "The Kingdom of God," he said, "is like a treasure hidden in a field, which, when a man finds, he hides again and goes and sells all that he has to buy that field so he can possess that treasure." What I've been seeing is when I feel I am looking into the kingdom of God with kingdom-sighted eyes, I am completely satisfied, regardless of anything around me, regardless of my financial situation, regardless of this earthly realm, and it seems as if I can see answers to things that I once found puzzling or frustrating. So I was wondering if others have been thinking about this, because I feel that this may be the basic message God is trying to get across to his church now, instruction in the ways of the Kingdom of God.

Just believers, please. Heartfelt answers, if you will.

If my desire is to prove my point, does that not limit my ability to learn? Does that not limit the trustworthiness of my argument? Can we really eliminate personal agenda from argument, and if so, can we then find truth and prove what is good and right and moral?

I wanted to try a different category, because I received no answers in the Biology section. Would this not be evolutionary suicide, to believe in something that wasn't true and brought us only disappointment?

Is not the very fact we can conceive of a higher intelligence evidence that he exists? If there were no God, wouldn't we all be happier if no one ever questioned it? Why would we evolve, what evolutionary advantage would there be, to having minds that can conceive the possibility of God if there was no positive outcome for believing in him? You can say, 'it's just a way for primitive man to explain the unexplainable.' But why would we even want to know if there's really nothing to know?