Quotessence
Home / Quotes / Quote by Leviak B. Kelly

Quote by Leviak B. Kelly

“A sapient cat looking at humanity's salad garden buffet designed by God would not be seen as so much a paradise if the divine is seen as giving this to intelligent cats. It would be seen as quite the opposite. Since cats use plants as emetics and also lack the ability to taste sweet, Eden would be a rather hellish place. It would be a place where God might send a cat to punish the feline. This is because fruits and vegetation to eat would be a place to eat bland foods that cause one to vomit. It would hardly be a beneficial place for cats if this was a place of divine refuge where death did not exist. Again the immortal state would place cats in a rather hellish environment.”

Quote by Leviak B. Kelly

Book:Religion: The Ultimate STD: Living a Spiritual Life without Dogmatics or Cultural Destruction
Create image

Work

Religion: The Ultimate STD: Living a Spiritual Life without Dogmatics or Cultural Destruction

Browse quotes and source details for this work. more

Author

Leviak B. Kelly

Browse famous quotes and profile details for Leviak B. Kelly. more

You May Also Like

“God's command to Noah that he could eat meat just as he could eat flora would be far more conducive and satisfying to the cat and other obligate carnivores. As a matter of fact the cat reading (yes, it presupposes reading in sentient and sapient cats) the human scripture might truly see the human God as correcting His mistake in the flood that he created in the Edenic account. If the cat saw the scripture as a human rendition of God, there might truly be a belief that the human God was finite and definitely having a more Luciferian nature towards cats.”

GodBibleCatsLucifer
Author:Leviak B. Kelly
Create image

“The cat uses trees, as stated, as many things but here it would not uncommon to see the oak as the marker, not the stone. Cats would spray the tree, not necessarily the rock. A rock as a further marker would be a non-essential redundancy that a cat would more or less ignore. It would be like saying one needed to ignore the law of God (written on the stone) to honour their promise to not honour foreign gods. The human reaction of obvious strangeness would begin here. If the tree is seen as an item to climb, the rendition would get more queer to the human interpretation.”

BibleCatsGod S Law
Book:Religion: The Ultimate STD: Living a Spiritual Life without Dogmatics or Cultural Destruction
Create image

“As Deborah sits below a tree to give advice to her people, the cat could envision itself above Deborah. In the cats mind, the visual allusion would first point to the prophetess as being a predator. This consideration would not be hard to reach for the lucid intelligent cat as she is giving advice to her people here as how to engage in war. Envisioning this text, the cats would find it hard not to recognize the predatory nature of the human beneath it. This fact means that Deborah becomes, in feline hermeneutics, the antagonist. The prophetess would be seen as a danger to the cat. This could lead the cat to deduce that the enemy of the prophetess was a fellow protagonist. Then the advice that Deborah gave to Barak would seem as a malicious attack on a ally or worse an innocent.”

BibleTreesCatsBarakDeborah
Book:Religion: The Ultimate STD: Living a Spiritual Life without Dogmatics or Cultural Destruction
Create image

“Watu wa zamani katika Agano la Kale walikuwa wakiabudu miungu iliyotengenezwa kwa mawe na vinyago. Miungu hiyo haikuwa na chochote ndani mbali na kutengenezwa kwa akili na fikira za kibinadamu. Hii ilikuwa ni kinyume cha ukweli wa Kibiblia kwamba Mungu alimuumba mtu kwa mfano wake, lakini si mtu aliyejaa dhambi kumtengeneza Mungu kwa mfano wake. Kuabudu miungu mingine ni dhambi kubwa. Tii Amri Kumi za Mungu; hasa ya kwanza, ya pili na ya tatu.”

MindIdeasGodBibleStonesManGodsOld PeopleIdolatryOld TestamentMunguSinsFirstSecondBibliaDhambiAkiliBinadamuThirdKwanzaMiunguAgano La KaleA Great SinDhambi KubwaFikiraMitiTatuKuabudu MiunguMan In His ImageMaweMtu Kwa Mfano WakeObey Ten Commandments Of GodPiliTii Amri Kumi Za MunguVinyagoWatu Wa Zamani
Author:Enock Maregesi
Create image

“The demand that the Bible should be read and understood and expounded historically is, therefore, obviously justified and can never be taken too seriously. The Bible itself posits this demand: even where it appeals expressly to divine commissionings and promptings, in its actual composition it is everywhere a human word, and this human word is obviously intended to be taken seriously and read and understood and expounded as such. To do anything else would be to miss the reality of the Bible and therefore the Bible itself as the witness of revelation. The demand for a "historical" understanding of the Bible necessarily means, in content, that we have to take it for what it undoubtedly is and is meant to be: the human speech uttered by specific men at specific times in a specific situation, in a specific language and with a specific intention. It means that the understanding of it has honestly and unreservedly been one which is guided by all these consideration. If the word "historical" is a modern word, the thing itself was not really invented in modern times. And if the more exact definition of what is "historical" in this sense is liable to change and has actually changed at times, it is still quite clear that when and wherever the Bible has been really read and expounded, in this sense it has been read "historically" and not unhistorically, i.e., its concrete humanity has not been ignored. To the extent that it has been ignored, it has not been read at all. We have, therefore, not only no cause to retract from this demand, but every cause to accept it strictly on theological grounds. (§19.1, p. 464)”

BibleHermeneuticsKarl Barth
Author:Karl Barth
Create image

“There is no such thing as a special biblical hermeneutics. But we have to learn that hermeneutics which is alone and generally valid by means of the Bible as the witness of revelation. We therefore arrive at the suggested rule, not from a general anthropology, but from the Bible, and obviously, as the rule which is alone and generally valid, we must apply it first to the Bible. The fact that we have to understand and expound the Bible as a human word can now be explained rather more exactly in this way: that we have to listen to what it says to us as a human word. We have to understand it as a human word in the light of what it says. Under the caption of a truly "historical" understanding of the Bible we cannot allow ourselves to commend an understanding which does not correspond to the rule suggested: a hearing in which attention is paid to the biblical expressions but not to what the words signify, in which what is said is not heard or overheard; an understanding of the biblical words from their immanent linguistic and factual context, instead of from what they say and what we hear them say in this context; an exposition of the biblical words which in the last resort consists only in an exposition of the biblical men in their historical reality. To this we must say that it is not an honest and unreserved understanding of the biblical word as a human word, and it is not therefore an historical understanding of the Bible. In an understanding of this kind the Bible cannot be witness. In this type of understanding, in which it is taken so little seriously, indeed not at all, as a human word, the possibility of its being witness is taken away from the very outset. The philosophy which lies behind this kind of understanding and would force us to accept it as the only true historical understanding is not of course a very profound or respectable one. But even if we value it more highly, or highest of all, and are therefore disposed to place great confidence in its dictates, knowing what is involved in the understanding of the Bible, we can only describe this kind of understanding of the reality of a human word as one which cannot possibly do justice to its object. Necessarily, therefore, we have to reject most decisively the intention of even the most profound and respectable philosophy to subject any human word and especially the biblical word to this understanding. The Bible cannot be read unbiblically. And in this case that means that it cannot be read with such a disregard for its character even as a human word. It cannot be read so unhistorically. §19.1, pp. 466-467)”

BibleScriptureHermeneuticsKarl Barth
Book:Church Dogmatics 1.2: The Doctrine of the Word of God
Create image

“Like my peers, I believed that the Bible was God's Word written down for me, answering all my questions about who God is and what God wants for my life, from the mundane to the ultimate. Or at least I knew that was what I needed to believe. But that was not what I found when I actually opened the Bible up and looked around inside.”

BibleBeliefs
Book:The Rise and Fall of the Bible: The Unexpected History of an Accidental Book
Create image