1y ago

What book(s) has changed your life?

What clicked and made you have a different mindset? How long did it take to start changing and how long was the transformation? Did it last or is it an ongoing back and forth between your old self? I want to know your transformation and success.

Any kind of change, big or small. Anything from weight loss, world view, personality shift, major life change, single change like stopped smoking or drinking soda to starting exercising or going back to school. I want to hear how people's life were a bit or a lot better through reading and your progress.

TIA 🙏

You're viewing a single thread.

123 comments

Probably an obvious first answer here, but scripture did that. Not a lot to explain there, most of us know how that works. It's one thing to know about something, but to really get into it is another thing.
- I agree. The Bible and the Koran have definitely impacted my life. For example, I pass where the Twin Towers used to stand about once a week, and my country used to give women control over their own bodies.
  
  You say that as if everyone reads it the same way or reads it correctly or that by “scripture” I couldn’t have meant something other than what usually comes to mind.
  
  Also corpal punishment another contribution the Bible has made to the world. Encouraging adults to beat children.
  
  That was a part of Torah-based approach to family that the Bible's revelations actually overwrote.
  It should be noted the Torah itself was ahead of its own time because it was the norm to be able to kill children, which the Torah saw as barbaric. You could say they beat out the Greeks on this.
  
  That was a part of Torah-based approach to family that the Bible’s revelations actually overwrote.
  Spare the rod, spoil the child. Is endorsed by your boy Paul. You know the guy who supposedly wrote over half of the NT.
  It should be noted the Torah itself was ahead of its own time because it was the norm to be able to kill children, which the Torah saw as barbaric.
  Except if the son was rebellious or if the child was of the enemy. Remind me what Jeremiah said again about rocks and children.
  
  Paul is not "my boy", if anyone is Jesus is. Jesus is the messenger and takes priority over Paul, who is seen as trying to dilute the message. This shouldn't be unclear, we are talking about the main figure of the Bible versus a prosecutor of his people. Jesus asks us to spare the rod, even when the child is rebellious.
  Another thing to note about the last point, it wasn't just any form of rebellion that led to this (in any civilization that wants a steady population, this wouldn't have been a practical teaching even if anyone wanted it to be law). It had more to do with honor. Meanwhile, the whole rocks and children verse is figurative.
  
  Oh this argument again. Yeah without your boy Paul there is no Christianity. Perfect sacrifice, services on Sunday, the lifting of the Moses commandments, Baptism, the proto-Trinity, original sin, the basic organization of the church, the sliding position of women, over half of the NT, the doctrine of salvation, faith vs works debate. Guess who did all this? Without Paul there would be nothing. There was zero plan for the day after.
  Also of course the Gospel writers borrowed from Paul, which I doubt you accept but truth doesnt depend on feelings. The Eucharist for example is highly likely to be either Paul inventing it or relating a story such that it would get popular.
  Jesus asks us to spare the rod, even when the child is rebellious.
  Chapter and verse please.
  Another thing to note about the last point, it wasn’t just any form of rebellion that led to this (in any civilization that wants a steady population, this wouldn’t have been a practical teaching even if anyone wanted it to be law). It had more to do with honor
  Don't care about apologetics. I care about what the law says.
  Meanwhile, the whole rocks and children verse is figurative.
  Just a prank bro!
  
  None of what you describe had any necessary relationship to him. It was already a perfect sacrifice. There were already services on Sunday because that's when Jesus did his services. The Moses commandments were lifted by nobody, but Jesus himself provided commentary on how priority for them would play out. Baptism did not start with Paul or even Jesus, but Jesus popularized it when asking John the Baptist (whose name is literally The Baptist) to baptize him. The trinity was an interpretational teaching and optional (Eastern Orthodox people don't even have it and never did). The position of women was always culturally influenced. Jesus made the eucharist a thing, he literally said "the bread is my body and the wine is my blood". And Jesus first spoke about salvation and faith versus works (I can cite quite a few verses on this). You could say a thing or two about the organization of the church, but then again, there was Catholics versus Eastern Orthodox. As for the gospel writers, perhaps you forget how many there were.
  And none of this is apologetics, so much as it's putting words in the mouth of the tradition to apply an absolute approach to interpretation.
  As for the sparing the rod...
  "Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it." ~ Mark 10:15
  "Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven." ~ Matthew 18:4
  "Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven." ~ Matthew 19:13-14
  
  Agh all of this is wrong. Have you ever read your book?
  It was already a perfect sacrifice.
  According to whom? Paul. Paul was the one who said that.
  There were already services on Sunday because that’s when Jesus did his services.
  Nope. Paul again because the Easter miracle happened on Sunday.
  The Moses commandments were lifted by nobody,
  Again No. It was in Paul's letters. You can even trace the line of Pharisee thought (as documented in the Talmud) that led to his conclusion. There is a reason why Christians can eat pork.
  but Jesus himself provided commentary on how priority for them would play out.
  Show that to me.
  Baptism did not start with Paul or even Jesus, but Jesus popularized it when asking John the Baptist (whose name is literally The Baptist) to baptize him
  Again. His letters predate the Gospels and I never said Paul invented it, I said he popularized it. Baptism was a sorta off-shot of a related Jewish tradition at that time. If very well could have vanished as a fad.
  The trinity was an interpretational teaching and optional (Eastern Orthodox people don’t even have it and never did).
  Yes, I know. I said that. We see hints of the Celestial Jesus in the letters of Paul that evolved eventually into the Trinity.
  The position of women was always culturally influenced.
  Nope. If the timeline of events were true the ministry had women on near equal footing which Paul reduced steadily as he lived.
  Jesus made the eucharist a thing, he literally said “the bread is my body and the wine is my blood”.
  He didn't exist but had he existed he wouldn't have said that. Again Paul. The exact wording is off.
  And Jesus first spoke about salvation and faith versus works (I can cite quite a few verses on this).
  Actually the Gospels came out after Paul and his debate with James :)
  You could say a thing or two about the organization of the church, but then again, there was Catholics versus Eastern Orthodox.
  Really? Show me Jesus talking about Bishops please.
  As for the gospel writers, perhaps you forget how many there were.
  4 cannon, and 11 non-cannon. Oh did you mean writers? Thousands. Nothing you saw in your KJV Bible even resembles what the original writings were like.
  As for the sparing the rod…
  Not one of those supports your claim
  
  See Luke 22:19-20, Mark 14:22-24, John 6:35, John 6:51-58, John 15:5, John 19:29-32, Matthew 22:34-40, and Matthew 12, a chapter literally called "Jesus works on the Sabbath". The events in the gospels came before Paul because Paul's conversion was after the last supper. To say his events came before the events in the gospels is very odd in an argument. You can't say "well the gospels were written after", that's like saying Canaanites came after the Hebrews because the Hebrews were written about before the Canaanites were written about. Things exist independently from writing about them.
  Not really sure why you included the trinity as a thing anyways if it's not impactful as to whether it's true or not, it would be like saying Paul invented robes. Yeah, and? All three parts of the trinity exist, but seeing it "as a trinity" is not necessary.
  When I said the position of women was always culturally influenced, I wasn't saying that in the sense that Paul didn't demote us in favor of men but that that was culturally a non-issue/moot. Paul said at one time we should wear coverings on our head, but that is extremely setting-exclusive, if depictions are anything to go by.
  Paul was completely unnecessary with baptism popularization. Traditions don't just vanish like you describe. Or else we wouldn't have a John the Baptist to speak of.
  The last verse I gave about children in my previous comment literally and explicitly denounces using any method such as the rod. If that doesn't support what I'm saying, then you've escalated this argument into a matter of understanding as well now, and I cannot explain something to someone who figuratively doesn't speak my language.
  I'm surprised I actually agreed with someone on what good manners and good form are before witnessing the argument continue out of the idea I'm not "supposed to" agree with you according to your assumption of what I am. I ethically agree with you, take it or leave it.

123 comments