can we consider? (to moderators)

[rcruman]

Quote: I am hoping not to see anymore BIBLE VERSES , another RELIGION THREAD , etc . If such postings and ideas persist and exist , direct it to EXISTING THREADS I never moved , deleted or merged since that is the purpose of consolidating topics to avoid confusion sa senior threads or threads who existed already .

thus showing of posting verses of the bible violates the rules of this forum or this is just a new/additional/revision of the rules and regulations?

can I still site the content of the verse and not posting the exact verse?

Peace!

[rcruman]

Quote: Simple ra jud kaayo ang SPIRITUAL and OCCULT na FORUM , post and discuss topics about supernatural phenomena, meditation, aromatherapy, divination (i.e. tarot cards, pendulum, tea leaves) , metapsychics, feng shui, homeopathic (natural) healing, etc. "subjects/topics about what is beyond the physical world" Religion is not even SPIRITUALITY so help me guys and gals in cleaning up and making this section a hangout haven for the weirdo's like me and and all of you .

I think we should widen our definition of RELIGION.
Religion is relationship towards GOD, and GOD is Spirit.

Not unless we believed in GOD which is not SPIRIT.

Peace!

[rcruman]

I'm not questioning the authority of the moderators, I'm just asking clarifications.

I think I've been here for almost 3 years and you all know how the way I deal conversation and discussion.
Biblical verse will support my claims, so if Posting Biblical verse violates the rule and its been prohibited Then All I gonna do is just to read and not to post anymore.

Please clarify moderators.

PEace!

[regnauld]

BIBLE FANATICISM is OUT....gets ka?

[Existanz]

I think Mr. Rcruman has a point, by excluding Bible quotes, the forum is preventing another individual's point of view about 'beyond the physical world'. Di man gud maiwasan nga ma-drag ning Bible kay usahay man gud naay argumentor nga mu-prove sa iya mga ideya via criticism of the Bible or Christianity. Na di naa juy mag-alburoto inig-basa nila aning mga arguments.

Nganu man kailangan nato, in most cases, gamiton ang lain belief para ipabarog ang atong personal na mga panlantaw? What do you expect? If we don't want Bible verses then we should refrain arguments that would eventually bring them down here.

Problema pud aning atong mga Bible (ang uban ba) experts kay di man sad kapugung sa ilang gibati..pataka lang sag dasmag maski wa man maghisgut bahin sa christianismo ang thread. Murag mga Rambutito..hinay hinay sad ta oi.

But I respect the moderators of this forum whatever their decisions..I'm just a guest here.

[brownprose]

rcruman has a point... just that the point he always leads us to is the old path aka ang dating daan.

[handsoff241]

Quote: Originally Posted by regnauld BIBLE FANATICISM is OUT....gets ka?

Ah reg, grabeh. *sigh
Mabaw na kaayo akong panan-aw nimo.

I'm not a big fan of bible verse throwing, but the point he(rcruman) is presenting is called "equality. The idea of other sects is as perverted as how the bible verses sounds to other sects.

As I have said before, we are what other people thinks we are and we can't do anything about it, it is how society thinks.

[regnauld]

Quote: Originally Posted by handsoff241 Ah reg, grabeh. *sigh Mabaw na kaayo akong panan-aw nimo. I'm not a big fan of bible verse throwing, but the point he(rcruman) is presenting is called "equality. The idea of other sects is as perverted as how the bible verses sounds to other sects. As I have said before, we are what other people thinks we are and we can't do anything about it, it is how society thinks.

Sorry my elite friend! I don't care if mabaw imong panan-aw nimo nako kay akong panan-aw nako nimo taas man gihapon! hahaha

I am not here to please you. I am here to follow the RULES of THE MODERATORS. Gets ka? simple as that.

[Ramini]

in my opinion pwede man mu cite ug mga bible verses pero dapat naai accompanying explanation from the poster..let's say: According to Genesis 3:4..(insert words) and it's clear nga (insert own explanation supporting your claim or thought)

so mao ni akong i prefer rather than: According to Genesis 3:4 (insert words) Klaroha ug basa ha! bacn wla ka kasabot sa giingon sa bible...

kai sa akoang tan-aw bacn lahi-on ug sabot sa pikas kng ang verse rai ihatag and wlai dugang explanation...kai mu lead ra ghapon sa confusion..so sa akoang tan-aw much better kng naai pakapin explanation para makasabot pd ang pikas kng unsai pasabot sa usa and para (hopefully) mka connect ang gitagaan sa verses kng unsai pasabot sa poster..dli lang verse alone..kai subject to another interpretation pd na sya..and will lead to more confusion thus leading to unecessary posts nya naa napd bag-o nga misunderstanding..wherein wala pa na resolve ang last nga debate/discussion..suggestion lang.

[handsoff241]

^Indeed sir... indeed. *nods

[countrykidanthony]

Quote: Originally Posted by Ramini in my opinion pwede man mu cite ug mga bible verses pero dapat naai accompanying explanation from the poster..let's say: According to Genesis 3:4..(insert words) and it's clear nga (insert own explanation supporting your claim or thought) so mao ni akong i prefer rather than: According to Genesis 3:4 (insert words) Klaroha ug basa ha! bacn wla ka kasabot sa giingon sa bible... kai sa akoang tan-aw bacn lahi-on ug sabot sa pikas kng ang verse rai ihatag and wlai dugang explanation...kai mu lead ra ghapon sa confusion..so sa akoang tan-aw much better kng naai pakapin explanation para makasabot pd ang pikas kng unsai pasabot sa usa and para (hopefully) mka connect ang gitagaan sa verses kng unsai pasabot sa poster..dli lang verse alone..kai subject to another interpretation pd na sya..and will lead to more confusion thus leading to unecessary posts nya naa napd bag-o nga misunderstanding..wherein wala pa na resolve ang last nga debate/discussion..suggestion lang.

aw kani i agreee.... dapat naa explaination para dili masaag ang mga mobasa..

[Ramini]

pero i can see a problem sa akoang suggestion kung i take ni into action..i remember rba rcruman sa una kadtong amoang gamayng debate..nga dli daw pwede muhatag ug own explanation kitang mga tao kai violation daw na..enuf na daw ang mga verses kai the verses itself will explain itself more clearly than any other human kai god's word man kuno...kabantay btaw ko anang mga taga ADD kai tagaan rakag mga verses nya mu assume dayon sila nga nakasabot ta..AND ang atong pagsabot IS similar to their own understanding pd..ingnan ragud kag.."BASAHAG TARONG HA!"..hehe! unless i enforce ni Springfield ang rule nga dapat naai accompanying explanation..so i guess mao nay lisod dinha..if dli sila musugot ana if ever man gani..aw maypa i ban nlang jd totally ang mga verses nga ipost or i qoute dri sa atong kinaham nga section sa Istorya..hehe!

[handsoff241]

That is for rcruman and the gang to comply, your idea sir is good.

[Ramini]

thanks mr. hands i appreciate the heads up.

[countrykidanthony]

Quote: Originally Posted by Ramini pero i can see a problem sa akoang suggestion kung i take ni into action..i remember rba rcruman sa una kadtong amoang gamayng debate..nga dli daw pwede muhatag ug own explanation kitang mga tao kai violation daw na..enuf na daw ang mga verses kai the verses itself will explain itself more clearly than any other human kai god's word man kuno...kabantay btaw ko anang mga taga ADD kai tagaan rakag mga verses nya mu assume dayon sila nga nakasabot ta..AND ang atong pagsabot IS similar to their own understanding pd..ingnan ragud kag.."BASAHAG TARONG HA!"..hehe! unless i enforce ni Springfield ang rule nga dapat naai accompanying explanation..so i guess mao nay lisod dinha..if dli sila musugot ana if ever man gani..aw maypa i ban nlang jd totally ang mga verses nga ipost or i qoute dri sa atong kinaham nga section sa Istorya..hehe!

dili man violation if mohatag ka ug explanation sa usa ka verse as long as ur totally grounded in the scriptures lang gihapon. kasagaran man gud they will give their own opinion sa mga verse without really understanding the whole context...

its actually true that the bible explains itself.. most bible scholars and christian pastors can connect the dots. but then if Bible verse lang ang ibutang man gud especially if walay supporting verses and explaination, then it will lead to misunderstanding especially nga most people will just post a certain verse or verses nya incomplete pa jud and most of the time out of context...

Kasagaran man gud pataka lang ug quote without really studying the whole context of where the verse is coming from mao it will lead to lots of confusions...

Taking Scripture out of context is epidemic. Whether we are led to do so by those handy verse numbers in our Bibles or by topical preaching that takes a scattershot approach to verse presentation (rather than a more expositional approach) or by our soundbite and short-attention-span culture, many of us have forgotten the cardinal rule of context.

Out of context, Jesus' statement "I have come not to bring peace but a sword" makes him sound like Conan the Barbarian.

Out of context, Hebrews 6:4-6 seems to indicate that Christians can ultimately "lose" their salvation, and indeed many believers use these three verses to support that view. But two verses later (Heb. 6:9), the author of Hebrews is contrasting whatever is being described in Heb 6:4-6 with "things accompanying salvation."
If one isn't looking at this full passage on the biblical page one may never see it.

We like to keep Scripture short and manageable, and that's understandable. It's certainly more convenient that way. But we will not be mastered by Scripture if we don't occasionally allow it to overwhelm us, intimidate us, and force us to wrestle with it. Bite size chunks are good for memorization and the like, but to feel Scripture, we have to drink from it deeply, pushing ourselves to capacity, and we must do this constantly and over and over again. Keeping verses in context may prevent us from clearly understanding something right off the bat, but it will also keep us from inadvertently misunderstanding it right off the bat.