Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

In regard to a recent event (bomb scares)

Oct 26, 2018 2:52AM PDT

A general question might be "Can a person be held responsible for the irrational behavior of another to this person's words or actions?"

I'd think it would be necessary to determine what is rational and what is not. We know that, if shouting certain warnings in crowded places, people could be injured trying to escape whether the warning shout was legitimate or not. In these circumstances, there's not sufficient time to stop and look around for the threat. Thus, I'd say their quick reaction is not irrational. However, if a person realized the hoax and attacked the one perpetrated it, that would not, IMO, be rational. Now...in the case of these reportedly inert bomb devices, could their making be blamed on the claimed inspiration of another person rather than the maker, himself? How often do we hear someone say, "God made me do it", and how often does that person get off the hook for that alibi? So...what's rational here and what is not?

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Snippets quoted accurately, to bring out the point
Oct 29, 2018 10:33PM PDT

of his remarks. As you can verify by a cursory search.
His point is rarely if ever "love" for others. His shill is paid to say what she does.

- Collapse -
Here's a long read on the value of rhetoric.
Oct 30, 2018 1:32AM PDT
- Collapse -
Yes...always rely more
Oct 30, 2018 2:42AM PDT

on the message of a competitor. Really...Mr P., don't get too absorbed in with this type of thing. It's worse for your liver than Jim Beam and more upsetting to the stomach than bad mead. Wink

- Collapse -
IOW their view of the harm of extreme rhetoric is false. OK.
Oct 30, 2018 4:41AM PDT

But, 11 bodies in Pittsburgh.
More on the way.

Bob! Don't read! Bible coming!
Absorbed? No, just aware. Following instructions from the Bible to read the signs of the times.
2Tim 3:1-5. "But know this, that in the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here. For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, haughty, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, disloyal, having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, without love of goodness, betrayers, headstrong, puffed up with pride, lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God, having an appearance of godliness but proving false to its power; and from these turn away."

During the same time frame, a comparison from one who observed the original from the heavens, Mt 24:36-39:
"Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father. For just as the days of Noah were, so the presence of the Son of man will be. For as they were in those days before the Flood, eating and drinking, men marrying and women being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and they took no note until the Flood came and swept them all away,
_so the presence of the Son of man will be_."

Along the way, note the correct rendering of the Greek parousia, as "presence", not "coming". Makes a difference. [It and its opposite, apousia, are used at Php 2:12 as presence/absence, not coming/going. And other places.] Use the Bible to teach the Bible.
Note also that the Flood is a fit topic for grown men, not a bedtime story for the kiddies. For men to read and apply.

- Collapse -
presence, coming, official visit
Oct 30, 2018 9:32AM PDT
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parousia

when defined as a very short time, such as "the day" Noah "entered" the ark, it's obvious in context it's talking about Christ presence at His "coming", which is why better translations use the word "coming". In another place Christ says they will see him coming in the "clouds of the sky (heaven)", so it's a well defined event in a short period of future time, because "every eye will see Him", not just some particular group of persons.
- Collapse -
(NT) Use the Bible; use Wikipedia. Choices. Take note.
Oct 30, 2018 12:24PM PDT
- Collapse -
Just to make trouble (about using the bible to teach itself)
Oct 30, 2018 3:22PM PDT

I've not seen where the gospel writers and/or those of other scripture did their own footnotes such that would explain the usage of specific words that just might take on other meaning later. Isn't it also true that not all that these writers said of Jesus was from their personal eye (or ear) witness? The oral tradition was already a work in progress. A good team effort it was. Just my thoughts

- Collapse -
Php 2:12, NWT, NJB, KJV, ASV, LS/MFT, PDQ ...
Oct 30, 2018 5:38PM PDT

Presence [in Philippi]; or, absence [from Philippi].
Just as we understand the words today: Paul is next to me in the meeting; or, Paul isn't even in Thessalonica.
Look into Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, under Present, Presence and Coming for detailed, scholarly, peer reviewed confirmation of the above.

Much more important is Jesus' timetable at Mt 24, 25. At 24:3 he speaks of his "presence" in the NWT and "coming" in all other Bibles. A big difference.

The end-time prophecies at 2Tim and many other places are being fulfilled now because Jesus IS present, near the earth, invisibly.
[Cf. Acts 1:10,11. He went away invisibly, in the clouds, and the angel promised he would come back "in the same manner".]

So, time is short, much shorter than stated in all other Bibles. Their adherents are waiting for Jesus to come in the flesh, so "every eye can see him". That will be too late to exhibit godly obedience and behavior. Mt 7:21-23.

"The oral tradition was already a work in progress."
Luke e.g. says he talked to "eyewitnesses" and "traced all things from the start with accuracy". That is the case also with the others.
The Catholic Encyclopedia often heads articles "Apostolic this or that", as if the statement or idea came from those Apostles who were Bible writers. Yet even the CathEn writers use the statements warily.

A prime reason why is furnished by renowned Clement of Alexandria. CathEn says he quotes an apocryphal "kerygma Petri" - message or teaching of Peter - that "Our Lord had advised the Apostles not to go far from Jerusalem during [the next] twelve years". That contradicts authentic scripture by more than eleven years. Thus, "into all the earth their sound went out." As ours does today. Acts 1:4 ff.
Clement clearly believed Petri was from Peter, but Eusebius and all writers today call it "tradition". Tradition misled, scripture saved.

As to what you Catholics must believe about the relationship between scripture and Magisterium, read CCC 86. Which do you choose to lead you, the servant or the master?

- Collapse -
Never mind hate speech,
Oct 31, 2018 10:18PM PDT