The Astral Pulse

[|)]I think that they do!

Yes they exist.

Exaxtly how people define them or percieve them is usually subject to great debate, but they exist.

[:)]
James.

stop asking stupid questions or go away.

Be nice now ok He is just asking!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by James S

Yes they exist.
Exaxtly how people define them or percieve them is usually subject to great debate, but they exist.

---

I agree, those words exist and people think about Jesus and God so they exist as imagination, but in some other form? I'm not so sure. What do you think?

joyrex, I'm a believer in what the quote says. What we know (or believe to know) now, can come to be known as something else later. I think it depends on one's openness to change and wanting to find the truth.

It's already been mentioned, the only proof one needs is what one discovers for him/herself. Faith isn't faith anymore once you have proof for yourself.It would also seem at this point it not being so much about proof but about one's understanding of what is now known. A interpretation of what you know.

Kakkarot, I'm fascinated with your meeting God. Would you care to say more on that?

Naugal, I haven't had a rock thrown at me, but my grandmother placed her ring for my mother to find on top of a spring flower (seven years after her passing). Is this what you mean? This was more about being a message, than for the purpose of proof I believe. That's what I mean by trying to interpret things. There are two other things possible with this, angel or spirit intervention, or a gateway to and from other dimensions. Are you looking for proof, or are you looking for understanding? It sounds like you are looking for the deeper meaning of understanding.

Yes they exsist!

wisp, you replied in the wrong thread...  [|)]

I thought the rock sentence was a famous saying... which means that everybody makes mistakes.  So, you can't be 100% sure of your interpretations...

I am basicaly saying that we will/can not know the truth.

oops... yep, I'm lost! [:)]

Interpreting is a gradual process to me.

quote:

---

I am basicaly saying that we will/can not know the truth

---

I believe anything is possible. [:)] You never know what's around the corner.

no, i'm sorry but i would like to not say more on that [|)]. i've only told one person of the actual detail of it, but i'm leery of posting certain events from my life because certain others have proven that they will attack me for merely saying things that they deem are "too out there" (even on forums which address issues that are "too out there" for the mundane masses)[B)].

i doubt that would be the case with you or nagual, but i'd rather not find out (there have been too many others whom i had respected who turned on me once they found out just how strange my life really is). sorry, but i've been hurt enough for now and i don't even want to go through the possibility of being "betrayed" again just yet.

~kakkarot

Thanks for your reply. I think I know what you mean. [;)]

When people ask "Does God exist?", what God are they referring to. In the Christian church, the image of God as the Father conjures up a picture of an old man with a beard sitting up in heaven taking note of humankinds every mistake. If thats how you define God then my opinion is no, he does not exist.

On a different level though, something has to be responsible for all of existence. Every religion, every philosophy (science included) tries to define one entity, one truth from which all else was created, and its existence is taken for granted even if we do not truly understand its nature. Thats what I define as God.

Of course, this is all just my opinion and open to criticism. No two people can have exactly the same views on something so undefineable.

--Eleusis

quote:

---

No two people can have exactly the same views on something so undefineable.

---

You make a true point eleusis. [:)]

see the other posts

The answer is simple, yes, both God and Christ exist.  The difficult part is believing it.  Belief does not equal truth, and no matter how much someone argues why Christ never existed doesn't change the fact that He did.  But if you do not have faith in Christ you will not understand His true existence.  He himself said "it is impossible to not believe what you see.  It is equally impossible to see what you do not believe."  I don't believe however that it's any one persons job on this earth to try to convince others that Christ exists.  In my experiences everyone who believes in Christ does so because they have experienced something in their life that opened their hearts to the idea.  I have never met someone who believes in Christ because they were told to.

Lau,  of course God exists.  Common sense and the close up viewing of animals, if nothing else, begs for a creator.  One easy, quick, example, and there are hundreds:
a giraffe.  

I'm not much on biology, but, when a giraffe bends over to eat something low, he should die from the sudden increase of blood pressure on his brain, due to the long neck.  BUT...guess what?....there is special intricate valving in his neck, to compensate for this.  You think this evolved?  They would all be dead in one generatioin.  Some say that Mr. Giraffe just "evolved" this (who designed the valve?) over a few million years.  Sorry, I don't have enough faith to believe in that.  A few weeks of watching animal shows on the cable will turn any rational person into a belief in a creator God.

It is said the odds of there not being a creator is like taking all the parts of a regular wind up watch, throwing the parts up in the air, and having a ticking watch hit the ground.   If anyone thought that could happen, we'd call him a fool, but evolutionists.....think about it.

Jesus said He was God.  That's why the Jews did Him in, on blasphemy charges.
Either Jesus was God, or He was a liar.  Not just another good man, or a prophet.
Double or nothing.

If you are truly seeking God, you are one of his children; otherwise, you would not have the thirst for truth.

Sorry for rambling, and any misspellings.  I have a new computer with a small keyboard, and I need reading glasses.   Hope to have improvements on both soon.

Who said giraffes had this problem before...?  Maybe they developped the valve before or while their small necks became longer...

My point of view is that: there are SO MANY unperfect aspects, problems in all creatures...  Why did God create them with all these limitations/imperfections/problems?

Because He wanted to.  Maybe He likes debate.  Maybe the giraffe was correctly designed from the start...Mr. Giraffe had to be, otherwise he wouldn't have survived.

So, you're saying that giraffes just suddenly appeared on earth with their actual anatomy???  Maybe you should read a little bit about the scientific researches on fossils, carbon dating and all the stuff related...

To not believe in evolution is one thing; but to blindly ignore the findings that goes against your belief is another...

I think maybe God created imperfections in animals for the same reason he created them in humans... so they would eventually die.  There is more to existence then living in this world, and to believe that animals don't have souls as humans would be incorrect.  There is an afterlife for all of Gods creations.  Why do we have handicaped people?  Why are some born blind or deaf.  All species have inperfections, because it's not a perfect world.  As for evolution, it's a fact.  All animals evolve, we have the proof of it.  But humans evolve differently.  Every species evolves physically do adapt to our environment.  Humans evolve mentally and invent new ideas to cope with their environment.  We are the only species on the planet that does that, which must account for something.  To believe that humans came from monkeys means you are not using common sense.  If we came from monkeys... why are there still monkeys?  And if humans come from almost every continent in the world, why did only some monkeys on the same continent evolve into humans, while their brothers and sisters remained primates?  Some say we became intelligent because we introduced meat into our diets which helps our brain to grow.  What about strictly carnivorous animals?  Those that eat nothing BUT meat?  Don't see lions walking around discussing philosphy of life do you?  Wanna use logic instead of belief, that's very good.  Because if you sit down and really think about all aspects of life, it's really quite logical to believe in a creator of it all.

quote:

---

I think maybe God created imperfections in animals for the same reason he created them in humans... so they would eventually die.

---

We don't necesseraly die from these "imperfections"...  Many people just die "naturaly", from being old.  I was more talking about very "stupid" imperfections/problems

quote:

---

Humans evolve mentally and invent new ideas to cope with their environment. We are the only species on the planet that does that, which must account for something.

---

Proven wrong many times by many animals who learned to adapt to new environment.  Like the use of tools, etc...  And not just talking about monkeys.

quote:

---

To believe that humans came from monkeys means you are not using common sense.

---

Who are you reffering to by 'you'...?  Let's see how better is your common sense...

quote:

---

If we came from monkeys... why are there still monkeys?

---

And next thing you will say is that there is only 1 stereotype of human being...  There are so many factors that will trigger so many different big or small evolutions...  It's not because one group of animals evolved one way that all the specie is going to follow...

quote:

---

And if humans come from almost every continent in the world, why did only some monkeys on the same continent evolve into humans, while their brothers and sisters remained primates?

---

First, if I understood clearly, in the past there was only 1 huge continent that later splitted appart...  And most primates are supposed to have come from what has become Africa.  Second, you ask why...  I reply "why not?"  See above...  Man, just look around.  Can't you see how much humans evolved in just a few centuries???  Do we all look like the same?

quote:

---

Some say we became intelligent because we introduced meat into our diets which helps our brain to grow. What about strictly carnivorous animals? Those that eat nothing BUT meat? Don't see lions walking around discussing philosphy of life do you?

---

Yeah...  Most pedophiles are males; so most males are pedophiles...  See the problem in your "logic"?

quote:

---

Wanna use logic instead of belief, that's very good. Because if you sit down and really think about all aspects of life, it's really quite logical to believe in a creator of it all.

---

At least one thing we agree on... [:D]  But that does not explain any of the creationist? theories.

Between concrete evidences found and beliefs from old stories/books...  I choose the evidences...

Well you know, there is no concrete evidence of humans evolving from monkeys.  Just a few bones and skulls, nothing that proves the evolution of man.  You make some good points, but not many.  As far as the meat thing goes, I wasn't overgeneralizing.  To say that pedophiles are mostly male so most males are pedophiles is an overstatement.  To say that meat eating animals are not all intelligent is not an overstatement.  I guess when you talk about creation it basically comes down to what you believe happened in the very beginning.  The universe was created somehow!  If you believe in God then you believe that He created it.  However, if you believe in the big bang theory, you still have to think outside the box.  Nothing can create itself.  Life springs from life.  To believe that the universe just happened would suggest that the universe created itself.  If it created itself, then it must have had a conciousness to do so.  This would suggest that conciousness and physicality don't have to co-exist.  So one must consider the possibility that there is a world of conciousness beyond the body.  It's not a question of evolution, but a question of creation.  This doesn't prove the existence of God but does further open the idea that there is life beyond life so to speak.  So who created THAT world?  Did it evolve from monkeys?   [:)]Just kidding-

Nagual,  there is a bumper sticker which says "I'm a fool for Christ.  Who's fool are you?"  Your fool is evidence you can only see and touch.  Interesting position for these cosmic chat rooms, where I betchya most of us are more spiritually oriented.

So the Bible is just old stories and books....what scientific methods did you use to come to that conclusion?  

Yes, I do believe giraffes appeared with their anatomy;  (that's called a creation of the Lord.   Probably a bit simplistic for you, but good enough for some of us)  otherwise, they'd be dead, obviously, after the first generation.  You guys say that rats descended from bats, over millions of years.   If that were true, you'd have more batrats than bats, or rats.  Please show me evidence of one of the millions of years of batrat fossils.  I won't hold my breath.  Maybe they are all in France.

Have you ever been in love?  Oops, I guess you don't believe in that, since you can't prove it with hard evidence.  

Originally posted by onefromsomewhereelse[/i]

Nagual,  there is a bumper sticker which says "I'm a fool for Christ.  Who's fool are you?"  

>That's assuming christ is God and not just a prophet, its also assuming your speaking of Parsifal rather than Homer Simpson.

So the Bible is just old stories and books....what scientific methods did you use to come to that conclusion?  

>Through the science of archeaology and the study of history there is great evidence of parts of the bible connecting various points of history.

 You guys say that rats descended from bats, over millions of years.

>Actually it doesnt work that way. various animals diverged from a previous species, thats what causes many similarities in various animals. Betcha ya didnt know that cats and dogs diverged from a common anscestor. So why don't you educate yourself on what evidence there is for evolution. Also, there are many different theories of evolution, just as there are different demonitations within the xian church.
 
Have you ever been in love?  Oops, I guess you don't believe in that, since you can't prove it with hard evidence.  

>What does that have to do with anything????

>Xander





[/quote]

Thanks Xander, I was begining to feel lonely... [:D]

quote:

---

Well you know, there is no concrete evidence of humans evolving from monkeys.

---

Just wanted to remind you that the focus was on evolution in general; no need to narrow it to the controversial monkey-humans evolution...

quote:

---

To say that pedophiles are mostly male so most males are pedophiles is an overstatement. To say that meat eating animals are not all intelligent is not an overstatement.

---

Excuse me but, when you say: "Some say we became intelligent because we introduced meat into our diets" and then "What about strictly carnivorous animals? Those that eat nothing BUT meat? Don't see lions walking around discussing philosphy of life do you?"; it translates to "human are intelligent because they eat meat"  and then wonder why "lions who eat meat are not intelligent"...  I see no difference with my purposefully absurd example...  I don't understand why you used your example on this topic...?  Trying to proove me wrong on the beliefs of other people...?

quote:

---

The universe was created somehow! If you believe in God then you believe that He created it. However, if you believe in the big bang theory

---

Again, if you read my previous post, I said that I agree "in a creator of it all".  But you cannot extrapolate that I believe in a (christian) god that created Adam and Eve with the Tree and Snake and all...  I just believe there is a cause to an effect; that's all.  Also, believing in a creator does not exclude believing in the big bang... No?

quote:

---

there is a bumper sticker which says "I'm a fool for Christ. Who's fool are you?" Your fool is evidence you can only see and touch. Interesting position for these cosmic chat rooms, where I betchya most of us are more spiritually oriented.

---

My fool (not sure what you mean by fool) is reason; not talking about skepticism or cartesian or whatever like that; but just thinking a little bit before rushing to a conclusion...

quote:

---

Interesting position for these cosmic chat rooms, where I betchya most of us are more spiritually oriented.

---

What do you mean by spiritually oriented...?  I have so called lucid dreams.  I have maybe so called OBEs.  To be open minded, does not mean to blindly believe in everything, rush to conclusion...

quote:

---

So the Bible is just old stories and books....what scientific methods did you use to come to that conclusion?

---

First, I did not name the Bible.  But, since you talk about it, the Bible is indeed an old book full of stories...  Isn't it?   I don't say the Bible stories are not true; as I don't say they are.  I just say that some ink on paper and stories repeated (and purposefuly deformed) from generations to generations will never convince me.  Of course, you can as usual use the St Thomas (correct?) excuse...

quote:

---

Yes, I do believe giraffes appeared with their anatomy... otherwise, they'd be dead

---

It's funny how your "proof" is based on the the same thing you are tying to prove...  God created giraffes with a valve not to die.  So Giraffes have a valve.  So God created Giraffes.

quote:

---

Maybe they are all in France.

---

[:O], I did not expect this attack!  Damn, you proved me wrong...   I'm a damn french! [:D]

quote:

---

Have you ever been in love? Oops, I guess you don't believe in that, since you can't prove it with hard evidence.

---

To be honest, nope, never been in love so far...  Or the closest would be my love for nature and animals...

To summup my "beliefs": When "you" see a shinny white light, "you" see God that loves you etc etc...
When I see a shinny white light, I see a shinny white light. Maybe it will become something else after some analysis of the experience.  But, these are good chances that it will just stay as a shinny white light.

Nagual... sorry if you feel you are being attacked.  That is certainly not MY intentions.  When it comes to believing or not believing in something, ESPECIALLY God, people take can it personal when their beliefs in general are critisized.  I did not, but I also didn't mean to degrade what you were saying either.  My appologies.  In fact I don't disagree with much of what you are saying, only some.  This is probably because I give credit for EVERYTHING to God.  But I don't want to come off as closed minded.  The big bang could have happened from Gods will.  "Let there be light, and there was light".  Let there be a universe, and there was a universe.  Makes sense to me.  And evolution could also be Gods will.  I mean, we know for a fact that dinosaurs existed... but the bible never talks about them in the creation of the world.  There are many questions that we may never answer.  I know I don't have the answers, so I am sorry if you interpreted what I was saying as "I am right and you are wrong".  That wasn't what I was trying to do.

If we consider God's ability to create something from nothing as magic, we must remember the most powerful magic is that which takes place naturally.

Just as one enjoys watching the process of growth, so does god enjoy watching his creation grow. True he may guide it to certain things but ultimately he allows the natural process to occur.

Xander

quote:

---

Originally posted by The AlphaOmega

Nagual... sorry if you feel you are being attacked.  That is certainly not MY intentions.  When it comes to believing or not believing in something, ESPECIALLY God, people take can it personal when their beliefs in general are critisized.  I did not, but I also didn't mean to degrade what you were saying either.  My appologies.  In fact I don't disagree with much of what you are saying, only some.  This is probably because I give credit for EVERYTHING to God.  But I don't want to come off as closed minded.  The big bang could have happened from Gods will.  "Let there be light, and there was light".  Let there be a universe, and there was a universe.  Makes sense to me.  And evolution could also be Gods will.  I mean, we know for a fact that dinosaurs existed... but the bible never talks about them in the creation of the world.  There are many questions that we may never answer.  I know I don't have the answers, so I am sorry if you interpreted what I was saying as "I am right and you are wrong".  That wasn't what I was trying to do.

---

Ok... but why did you post my whole reply?  How does it apply to what you wrote?

quote:

---

Originally posted by The AlphaOmega

Ok... but why did you post my whole reply?  How does it apply to what you wrote?

---

LOL! Think about[8D]

Xander

Ah mind games!  Again, you posted my entire reply.  Instead, try answering my question with your OWN reply.  Saves time and me a headache [:)]

quote:

---

Originally posted by The AlphaOmega

Ah mind games!  Again, you posted my entire reply.  Instead, try answering my question with your OWN reply.  Saves time and me a headache [:)]

---

NO! not mind games! Let me simplify for you. Assuming GOD is in charge of the universe, he is thus in charge of nature. Nature follows certain laws of god. One of those being that things change according to those laws, and #2. those changes take time, thus are not instantaneous. While there are at times spontaneous instananeous healings and such, they are not the norm but the exception.

evolution speaks of the norm...Gods changes during a process of change through time.

do....you....understand????

Xander

Yes I understand now, thanks for the clerification!

quote:

---

Nagual... sorry if you feel you are being attacked. That is certainly not MY intentions.

---

Thanks AlphaOmega, and do not worry; I don't really feel attacked.  Hum... maybe a little frustrated... [:D]

In fact, I begin to wonder if I should not just skip the religious forums (I used to read all posts in all forums) given that I am agnostic...  I might be a little provocative.

Good luck, and keep your mind and eyes open! [|)]

I have found that religion is the most difficult of discussions because it is the most contraversial.  I have my beliefs, and I simply cannot comprehend going against them.  What I believe makes up my whole existence.  But it is not my belief to tell others they are wrong, or to make others feel that I am against them.  On that note, this will be the last reply on this particular topic that I engage in.  I feel it's gotten off course, and like yourself, I don't think I've made any progress.  I'll probably read still read it, but it's just too personal and broad a topic to make any kind of an impact.  However Nagual, I did listen to what you had to say with an open mind, and agree with much of it, so keep fighting the good fight[8D]!!!!!

Yes.  Also, it seems that evolutionists can't comprehend the Lord creating things not new.....for example, the Lord could create a rock 30 milliion years old; that doesn't mean it was in existence for 30 million years.

quote:

---

Originally posted by onefromsomewhereelse

Yes.  Also, it seems that evolutionists can't comprehend the Lord creating things not new.....for example, the Lord could create a rock 30 milliion years old; that doesn't mean it was in existence for 30 million years.

---

What would the purpose be for her to do that? The only reason I can see why that would occur is a deliberate attempt at deceit, thus making your god one of extremely poor character and thus anything that it would say (the bible) would be dubious at best.

Xander

God is neither male or female, but spirit; however, English usage dictates this term to be "he" and not "her".

God could have created things "aged" for many reasons.  One is, because He wanted to.  Another, to have immediate access to  things which by His natural laws take otherwise many years to form, such as geologic matter.  Wouldn't want to put those dinosaurs on a molten planet....might burn their feet!

I really don't think God cared if He fooled anyone, although He seems to have accomplished this anyway.

quote:

---

Originally posted by eleusis2

When people ask "Does God exist?", what God are they referring to. In the Christian church, the image of God as the Father conjures up a picture of an old man with a beard sitting up in heaven taking note of humankinds every mistake. If thats how you define God then my opinion is no, he does not exist.

On a different level though, something has to be responsible for all of existence. Every religion, every philosophy (science included) tries to define one entity, one truth from which all else was created, and its existence is taken for granted even if we do not truly understand its nature. Thats what I define as God.

Of course, this is all just my opinion and open to criticism. No two people can have exactly the same views on something so undefineable.

--Eleusis

---

for me "god" is everything. But everything is (as far as i can tell)beyond what i can comprehend. things like time and different levels of different things come into play.

hmmm

I don't like the term "God". It makes me think of a manlike being. This is because of my years of indoctrination. "God" makes me think of the God of the bible and I don't like the bible and I don't like christianity (or the islam).

I do believe in something divine. A spark within ourselves that is life and is part of something bigger.

In lieu of spending a bunch of time typing, I'm copying my post from another thread that gives just a few of my thoughts ...

Fundamental to my belief (and Christianity) is the Incarnation - that is, that the transcendent Unknowable God was incarnated in space/time, our material world, as man, first in a special way in the person of Jesus, and more generally, in every human. It speaks to the mystery of our existance, which involves an intimate connection with the God who is beyond all knowlege, names and images, yet Who is at the same time, completely present at the core of all that exists, including each of us.

The Gospel of John, for example, starts by referring to the Logos and saying that this Logos became flesh (incarnated) in the person of Jesus. The Logos, at the time of the writing of the Gospels, would have been a well-understood Greek philosophical concept that referred to the power, pattern, order and intelligence that pervades and underlies the universe,through which created things came to be and by which they are sustained in their existence. Logos, for example, is where our word "logic" is derived from. Logos, in the Gospels is usually translated as "Word," implying the Creative Word continually issuing forth from God, creating and sustaining all things.

John, then, takes this concept and says it is embodied, enfleshed and revealed to us in the person of Jesus - that Jesus is the "Word" or manifestation of the unseen, unknoweable God. It is indeed a paradox, in that one the one hand, we say (just as the Cabalist does) that God is beyond all knowlege and names (thus the Jews' prosciption against pronouncing God's "name" or making "graven images" in that all names and images are incomplete with respect to who or what God is), yet God is known through his Word, which reveals that which is hidden.

Now John goes on to say that this Logos is the very thing that gives light to every person, i.e., that while the Logos is incarnated in a unique revealatory way in Jesus, that same reality of union of God and Man is present in every person - a universal or "catholic" truth. So, in some way, we are all part of this eternally dynamic Word that continually issues forth from God.

Of course, attempting to define this exactly has been the core of thousands, probably millions of debates! How can we say on the one hand that God has always existed and is totally "apart from," yet totally "united to" what He has created?!? (Simultaneously transcendant and immanant.)

One the one hand, we can take the pantheistic (or closely related monistic) approach where God and the Universe are equated - all is ONE. Pantheism, then, is reductionist in that there is no room for God as anything other than the sum of the parts. Pantheism is really abstracted atheism where "god" is impersonal force. Pantheism is the attempt to bring unity into the diversity of things, but at the cost of reducing God to fit into our limited minds.

On the other hand, we can go the dualistic route - a sharp division between spirit and matter, God and Man. Never shall the twain meet! This gives us some obvious difficulties, like "if matter and mind are completely seperate, how does the mind apprehend the material world?"

Both systems of thought give rise to difficulties and in the end, I believe that this is where words simply break down in their ability to transmit an accurate picture of reality. Thus, we come to symbols. In this regard, I think that math can give some clues as to how things can be both separate and unified simultaneously!

Take, for example, the "Golgen Ratio" Phi, or more generally, irrationaly numbers. First, natural numbers are so name because they denote the material world and it's plurality - things can be enumerated, counted. 1, 2, 3, 4, and so on. Rational numbers are defined as ratios of natural numbers. Again, these are directly related to enumeration - 1/2, 2/3, 5/8, etc.

Irrational numbers, however, present an intriguing phenomenon - they are not "rational" in that they cannot be expressed in terms of natural numbers, thus they in some way related to a higher realm than that which can be counted (the material world). They are defined in terms of intrinsic characteristics and relationships of one thing to another. They hint at non-enumerated unity.

So, pi is defined by the inner relationships of the aspects of the circle. Phi is defined by a recursive relationship. These "numbers" bridge the gap between mind and matter, hence the reverence bestowed them throughout the ages. Phi, for example, while being an irrational number, is integral to the forms of growth and reproduction. For me, it speaks then of how that which is above enumeration (unity) can unfold into diverse forms.

This gives rise, by the way of analogy, to an understanding, at least to some degree, of the paradox of how God could be both transcendent or "apart" and apprehendable or immanent.

On a personal note, I have had a very profound and intimate relationship with God and Jesus for many years (in fact, in retrospect, from before I was born), so it goes far beyond some intellectual pursuit or philosophical inquiry or "being told" what to believe. (Just a preemptive parry to the inevitable accusation ... [;)])

quote:

---

Originally posted by onefromsomewhereelse

God is neither male or female, but spirit; however, English usage dictates this term to be "he" and not "her".

---

in which books / english manual does it say this ?

DOES GOD/JESUS EXIST? HELP ME PLEASE....................[?]

Yes Jesus Christ exists and He wants a relationship with you so He can change your heart.

The Bible is God's Word and all Truth.

Only the Gospel of Christ leads to happiness and eventually an Eternity with Him.

Ephesians 1:13

  13In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,


Get a good KJV Bible, a concordance and pray to the Holy Spirit to understand His Wisdom in the Word.

This Way you can be sure that Jesus will enter your heart and change your life!

They both exist.  There are plenty of "proofs" that Jesus existed in various religions and books.  God on the other hand is a much more complex concept that no-one can correctly claim to understand completely.  It's like trying to teach a dog to speak a human language.

Quote from: lau_lauzDOES GOD/JESUS EXIST? HELP ME PLEASE....................[?]

Quote from: Soma-Sight
The Bible is God's Word and all Truth.

Actually, the bible never refers to itself as God's Word.  Biblically, the Word (Logos) is Christ.  You're coming dangerously close to idolatry here, IMO.

Quote
Only the Gospel of Christ leads to happiness and eventually an Eternity with Him.

I'm a Christian, and I disagree.  I've known some pretty happy atheists, and some pretty miserable Christians in my lifetime.  It's all a matter of perspective, really.

Quote
Get a good KJV Bible

Why the KJV, out of curiosity?

QuoteActually, the bible never refers to itself as God's Word. Biblically, the Word (Logos) is Christ. You're coming dangerously close to idolatry here, IMO.

2 Timothy 3:16 (King James Version)
   16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:


Saying God's Word's are Truth is not idolatry my friend.

A Christian without a knowledge of the Bible is like a ship on a grand voyage...................without a compass! The waves will quickly sink you in false security.

QuoteI'm a Christian, and I disagree. I've known some pretty happy atheists, and some pretty miserable Christians in my lifetime. It's all a matter of perspective, really.

1 Thessalonians 4:13 (King James Version)

13But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.


True Christians understand that this life is a passing show. The reality of the situation is the eventual return of Jesus Christ to rescue His followers from sin and death.

A person with this knowledge cannot help but be hopeful for the future.

QuoteWhy the KJV, out of curiosity?

The KJV is the closest to the original Greek, Hebrew manuscripts.

Quote2 Timothy 3:16 (King James Version)
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

I assume you're a believer in biblical inerrancy, and if so that's all well and good, but I have a significantly different take on this one.

1.  When it was written, the Bible in its current form did not yet exist.  Thus, when the author of 2 Tim. says "all scripture," he might well be referring to writings that YOU would not accept as scripture.

2.  Inspiration is not quite the same thing as being the direct words of God.

3.  I'm of the school of thought that 2 Tim. was one of the books written some time after Paul's lifetime by someone using his name.  This same guy has some rather misogynistic things to say about women in particular, which shows me he didn't share Christ's belief in equality, or Paul's sentiment that "there is no Jew, Greek, slave or free, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."  So, while he may have had other good things to say to his congregation, that's enough for me not to feel any compelling need to take every word he says as God-breathed truth.

Quote
Saying God's Word's are Truth is not idolatry my friend.

I believe the bible contains the words of God (most notably spoken by Jesus and the OT prophets) but it, in itself, is not THE Word of God.  It is a book, into which the words of God have been written by men, after being filtered through their own finite understanding.  A useful tool for discovering who this Jesus character was, and through him, who God is and what He wants from us, but that's as far as I'd go.

Quote
A Christian without a knowledge of the Bible is like a ship on a grand voyage...................without a compass! The waves will quickly sink you in false security.

Agreed.

QuoteThe KJV is the closest to the original Greek, Hebrew manuscripts.

Disagreed.  The KJV is great as far as beautifully poetic language is concerned, but it's actually among the least accurate translations out there,    Which shouldn't be all that surprising -- it was translated in the 15th century by a committee on the king's payroll.  Not only have more manuscripts been discovered in the centuries since then, biblical scholarship has come quite a long way, and now we have the benefit of scholars who can work without fear that they'll lose their heads (literally) if they don't come out with a finished product that the king approves of.

Since all translations have their strengths and weaknesses, the best choice is to have a bunch of 'em on hand to compare and study.  That's where biblegateway.com comes in -- I think they have like twenty different versions now.  I personally have found the NRSV to be the best balance between readability and accuracy I've seen so far, so that's the one I get the most general use out of.

Yes, they both exist. They have found scientific proof that Jesus exists, and In the bible it predicted many things that have happening. One such prediction is Israel once again becoming a nation. It also predicted that Israel would always be fighting with Palestine. Just watch, they'll never have peace. Finally, where did the universe come from if not from God? If you say the big bang , what started that?

I'm glad I stayed out of religion so far in my life :-).
Though I agree with some of the things Jesus is supposed to have said, including treating others as you would have yourself be treated, and "the kingdom of heaven is within  you".
I don't think I need to just take something into my heart on "faith" to be happy and lead a fulfilling life. A heart centred idea of morality has served me well enough so far :-).
Interesting that there are so many "versions" of "God's Word.
The Big Bang is just a model of what might have happened, creationism is another and possibly metaphoric.
I'm sure in time to come we will predict better, more complete pictures of what happened, if it's knowable by us that is :-).
And all in all I could just be typing late late night nonsense on this here thread :-).

Palehorse_

Palehorse, if someone like Soma-sight believes in the inerrency of the bible and is to be taken literely, 'written in stone'  (a stance which is fanatasism and dangerous imo, as bad as muslim fanatics), there is little point in wasting breath and energy trying to argue otherwise.

Any attempt to bring normal historical perspectives and historical or histiographical elements will not be appreciated and indeed ignored.

This is a matter of faith for them and they are free to believe this if they wish, even of they do irritate the rest of us with their constant 'in-your-face' preaching...

as long as they do not get access to nuclear weapons so that they can 'hasten the second coming' then they can do what they like as far as I'm concerned!

Doug

PS I  thank 'god' I was not born in the bible belt. i think i would go nuts!  :wink:

QuotePS I thank 'god' I was not born in the bible belt. i think i would go nuts!

I second this, how I would have survived with some kind of faith ridden environment I'd never know. It's great for those that truly need that security but for those that don't? to have it forced would be hell.

Quote from: GandalfPS I  thank 'god' I was not born in the bible belt. i think i would go nuts!  :wink:

Most of us do!

But thank God I wasn't born into a bible-thumping Evangelical family.

Really, at my Catholic university, there's always some guy preaching near our library that we should "find Jesus" or else "we gonna go to hell." He just looks like an idiot. Everyone thinks, "duh, I'm at a Catholic school, you think I don't welcome Jesus?"

I can never work up the courage to say, "shutup and do good works, you stain on society!!" Although I'm afraid people around me will only hear the "stain" part, which would be racist and offensive, since he his black and clearly struggling financially.

Gee, I wonder why. (http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=16415)

QuotePalehorse, if someone like Soma-sight believes in the inerrency of the bible and is to be taken literely, 'written in stone' (a stance which is fanatasism and dangerous imo, as bad as muslim fanatics), there is little point in wasting breath and energy trying to argue otherwise.

I disagree.  What you probably aren't aware of is that I myself used to hold beliefs very similar to his.  If I can change (especially to the extent that I have in the past few years) anyone can.  I shudder to think where I might be today if everyone had simply written *me* off as being beyond all hope.

As far as I'm concerned, effort is never wasted when addressing spiritual bondage in all its forms -- not the least of which is the fear based theology peddled by so many Christians today.  Since my background and predominant field of study is Christianity, my fellow Christians are the people who I feel most well equipped to engage with in this way.  Not that any other form of religious or spiritual bondage is less important by any means; this is just where my own strengths are.

Do I expect to persuade many of them to my point of view?  Nope, and that's not what I'm about anyway -- everyone should study and reach his own informed conclusions rather than being told by anyone else what to believe.  Only God can change hearts; my place is only to put the relevant info out there so that maybe they'll remember it and have a good starting point to work from when (not if) He does.  I view my role as being one who  demonstrates by example that there's room for a vast diversity of belief and practice under the umbrella of Christianity, and that being a Christian does not entail checking your intellect or even your humanity at the door.

Palehorse, that was a great post. I feel the same way.

QuoteI view my role as being one who demonstrates by example that there's room for a vast diversity of belief and practice under the umbrella of Christianity, and that being a Christian does not entail checking your intellect or even your humanity at the door.

Same here. One of the things keeping me "Catholic" is the doctrine of divine simplicity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_simplicity), which states that God is infinitely simple. It's an integral viewpoint and in no way conflicts with the metaphysical monism of spiritualism.

With that viewpoint, it follows that any doctrinal system that is too complex and difficult to understand is probably wrong.

It's a shame it's not taught or recognized by most Catholics. I never learned about it in all my years of school, including college. I had to look it up on Wikipedia.

"I shudder to think where I might be today if everyone had simply written *me* off as being beyond all hope."

I agree, there should always be room for "growth" and I assure you that Admin. and the moderators here fully support that notion. But at the same time no one person should be allowed to dominate this place, nor should they be overtly offensive to others in the course of their development. But in the general course of events there is an underlying agreement with what you say.

Yours,
Frank

If I may just put in my ten cents worth. It seems obvious that we as humans cannot with certainty tell what happened that long ago. It also seems obvious that all though there are flaws in the reasoning of creationists, as well as the very evangelical viewpoints, the truth is however out there, and whether we believe something to be the truth or not, the truth is the truth ....and.......remains the truth. We don't know but we have to chose, what we believe to be the truth.

This is called belief. For every argument against creation or the validity the historical Jesus, there will be counter arguments in every way as compelling as the former, but knowing is not an option here my friend. As someone said "was you 'dere".

Some however have chosen to base their belief on what they have experienced instead of what they term "blind Faith", building, one could say their faith on observation and logical thought processes instead of the Bible. To those who believe I say, good for you, for your life is simple, it does not get confused by the things you experience, but has a nice set of boxes fitted for every uncomfortable question. To those who do not believe I say, good luck and all the best in your quest. Even those of you who adhere to the Biblical views will have to agree that "he who seeks shall find". An honest heart engaged in a sincere effort and desire to find the truth will find it, and in a way you are, if not now, then maybe later, brothers nevertheless. Remember no one is won by arguments, and if you are the servants of a God of Love, then by this shall all men know that ye are his children if you LOVE. Maybe that should be the common denominator.

As for myself I have to admit that it seems evident (to me) that God whoever he is and however he planned it all is waaaaay bigger than I at first assumed. He is not limited by human minds and he seems, in spite of so much strife and aggression to know what He is doing.

Regards Mustardseed

Mustardseed_

But do you believe that In order to have a life beyond this one you must believe and accept jesus as your lord and if you do not accept him then you go to hell or cease to exist? the old 'no one comes to the father except through me' routine.

Its just that this notion, beloved of evangelicals who like to base their doctrines on fear, is deeply troubling to most enlightened people who find this notion incompatible with the notion of a god of unconditional love, forgiveness and compassion.

However as far as I know the catholic church has already made much progress in this regard and now accepts that all good minded people will get into heaven regardless  of their particular faiths.. its still not perfect as its still means god condemns people to death or torment for their sins, but at least it means that athiests who have nevertheless dedicated their lives to helping others or are otherwise good people, and people of other religions are no longer 'damned' and can still go to heaven (even if they get corrected on their 'error' first, according to this doctrine).

Whats your view on this?

Douglas

Quote from: Frank
I agree, there should always be room for "growth" and I assure you that Admin. and the moderators here fully support that notion. But at the same time no one person should be allowed to dominate this place, nor should they be overtly offensive to others in the course of their development. But in the general course of events there is an underlying agreement with what you say.

Does this mean Soma got banned?  Haven't seen him in a day or two I don't think.

Ah well; whether he did or not, I wish him the best and I hope he eventually makes peace with God, man and himself.

Dear Gandalf
Ha well you certainly know how to put someone on the spot. I have recently had to consider these things in very very great detail and shall be glad to answer you and explain "my take" on this. I will however remind you and anyone else that this is only "my take" and I am not in any way claiming to know. It is just my own considerations, and I shall admit that at times it feels like I am trying to "fit" different uncomfortable  questions into my little belief box. As I said I do not know anything I can only guess assume and theorize and try my best to see how things would fit,

Quote from: GandalfMustardseed_

But do you believe that In order to have a life beyond this one you must believe and accept Jesus as your lord and if you do not accept him then you go to hell or cease to exist? the old 'no one comes to the father except through me' routine.¨

The Bible states

1 John 4:8 - He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.  

1 John 4:16 - And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.  

This seem to indicate that God is the very spirit of Love itself and partaking of His life in this realm and in the one to come depends on whether one "dwells in Love". To me this is the central point, because it also reflects on Christians who do not act loving yet hope to gain "Heaven" through Faith alone and not Love. This particular aspect of unloving Christians, unchristian Christians if you will, is actually an interesting point, scripturally, it is as if by living in LOVE one gets to KNOW God, one becomes one with His Spirit and as a result starts to dispense of His love, which should be felt by people. This not depending on peoples faith but most assuredly because of it, and like Jesus on the Cross loves even the one who scorns and taunts him.

Galatians 5:6 - For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.

This power of LOVE works great in the Astral environment as well as in this realm, it transcends as you might call it and seem to attract the same Love where ever it is shown. If this Love to love the unlovely is not present however, a large part of Christian power is lost, for the power of Christianity lies not in clever arguments fast firing of of references and doctrines but only very humbly lies in LOVE, and it seems that Gods Spirit leaves such a Christian, the word even speaks of this in Matthew 7

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. 21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. 24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:


So Gandalf the sword seems double edged and this troubles many folks. They seem however to be still full of Faith that whatever sins they commit it will be forgiven them. A very comforting doctrine and one that had me hoodwinked and sidetracked for many years. Not that I do not believe it because I do, but somehow it still confused me and hindered me fighting for LOVE. It was as if there was no reason to do the right thing cause even if I did wrong I would be forgiven so why then bother? Many many Christians fight this lackadaisical attitude and fall in this hole and maybe as a result act in a less than Christian way. It is not until this doctrine of universal forgiveness is seen in the light of Galatians 6:7 - that a more complete picture emerges.

Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

A Christian must eventually come face to face with himself and start to realize that God is fair and loves everyone, even the ones that the said Christian looks down on as a unsaved sinner, just as much as He loves him. If He does he will once again dwell in LOVE. I believe that there is a great deal of spirituality and insight in the good book, I believe it is the Word of God Gandalf, I really do, but one thing is to believe it, how one interprets what it says in it is quite another thing.

QuoteIts just that this notion, beloved of evangelicals who like to base their doctrines on fear, is deeply troubling to most enlightened people who find this notion incompatible with the notion of a god of unconditional love, forgiveness and compassion.

To anyone who spreads fear, consider the following

1 John 4:18 - There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.

I realize that this will be countered with all the many scriptures about fearing God, because some seem more at home when they can condemn and judge. Overall however the picture that the New Testament gives of Jesus is a patient loving Best friend, someone who never gives up never stands down, never leaves anyone behind, always there willing to show His LOVE.

I think that If these Enlightened people would just have a little patience, and show their enlightenment through a patient exchange of words, and polite asking of questions, and if these Christians who believe in a God of Love would show a little more of this Love without condemnation , looking down on others as unsaved sinners, if they would behave a little less like the scribes and Pharisees, maybe some of the questions about where we are on our way, could be answered. Like some politician said in an old movie :

"Why can't them Muslims and them Jews just behave in a more Christlike fashion !"

Its from the best little Whorehouse in Texas one of the old favorites, and a very interesting Movie that brings this very question in to focus. See it if you have a chance.

Just a thought

QuoteHowever as far as I know the catholic church has already made much progress in this regard and now accepts that all good minded people will get into heaven regardless  of their particular faiths.. its still not perfect as its still means god condemns people to death or torment for their sins, but at least it means that atheists who have nevertheless dedicated their lives to helping others or are otherwise good people, and people of other religions are no longer 'damned' and can still go to heaven (even if they get corrected on their 'error' first, according to this doctrine).

Whats your view on this?

Well I do think that people who live in selfishness and a lack of LOVE will be tormented in the life to come, they make their own Hell so to speak. Like attracts like as we know, and they will attract similar energies, and most likely go to a level in the astral that is termed the lower levels, very dense energies. I have visited these areas briefly many years ago. If we believe God to be LOVE the ones who has elevated their life to be lived in LOVE will also attract like, for as it said God is not mocked whatsoever a man sows he will reap. It all depends if we see God as LOVE or as Judgment and hate.

As for myself I choose to see Him as LOVE, everlasting, kind compassionate and forgiving, a patient yet humble best friend always willing to accept me at whatsoever level I am. Always reminding me that LOVE is the answer, never condemning hateful or vengeful.

But then again that is my choice.

Sorry for the Length of this

Regards Mustardseed

Sorry for the Length of this

Regards Mustardseed

Not at all, a great post!

I agree with your last point particlularly as I feel that it makes sense in any religion which bases itself on the notion of a god of unconditional love and compasasion, that this god would still accept those people who are nevertheless good, despite them being members of other faiths/no faiths. If we accept that upon death these good people from other faiths/non faiths receive instruction on their individual errors of their perception of god, and are then welcomed within for their good actions, then i don't see how anyone could have a problem with such a doctrine, that is, if they believe in a god of unconditional love.
As for the catholic ruling on this, which i mentioned, i guess the thinkers in the Vatican must have realised this point themselves, which is why they have endorsed it, although I'm sure many other christian groups have too.

One other question which you touched upon, if you don't mind:

You mentioned the astral/like + like aspect to this, which I would agree with.

Now if people who have performed bad actions and consistantly have bad intent then go to hell (or a 'lower realm' formed by like + like, if we use astral terminology):

do you then believe they stay there for ever? ie eternal damnation.. or do you believe that if these people learn the errors of their ways and fully come to terms with their past actions, then they may gravitate upwards as it were, or to use the terminology, become accepted into heaven? If the idea of like + like applies then it follows that if someone stuck in this realm who fully repents of their actions, they will no longer be trapped there, they will naturally gravitate towards the realm of love.

This would be consistant with the original greek version of the bible. I'm sure you have heard about this but the fear-based preachers love to use the notion of *eternal* damnation but it is now fairly well known that the original greek word used was 'Aeon' which denoted a time which could vary, sometimes it meant 1000 years, sometimetimes other lengths of time, but most importantly it ALWAYS denoted a FINITE amount of time..
however in the english (and latin as well i think) versions, *aeon* has been replaced with *eternal*, a simple word change which I'm sure you will agree has profound implications.

I think the original writers used 'aeon' because they wanted to show that people could end up in these regions for periods of time, sometimes long periods depending on their mindset, and so this word, sometimes denoting a period of 1000 years, was used in order to illustrate this possiblility.

If this is true then people will stay there for various lengths of time, basically until they accept the error of their past actions and until the *fully* repent in the core of their heart.. they will then gravitate upwards..
now this depends on the person.. someone might only spend a very short time as they come to realise thier past actions and recognise the love within them almost right away.. but a particluraly stubborn and/or wicked person might stay there literely for an aeon (or longer!) if they consistantly refuse to take account of themselves.. and they will stay there for as long as it takes!

Whats your take on the above?

Doug

Dear Douglas

I see that you know your Greek, good for you. As I might have mentioned before somewhere I have studied the Bible in Greek and Hebrew for the last 28years  :shock: yep that is a long time, and I have had many questions similar to yours. The word Aeon is just one of the ones that has come up. As you described so well it seems to denote or  mean a finite time period and not eternity. So yes I do believe as you said that people can learn and grow and possibly change their mind and eventually ascend from hell. There are many many scriptures that support this and many books written about it as well. It is called the theory of Universal Reconciliation. Some scriptures are pretty obvious and some may need interpretation. The Catolics talk about the doctrine of "limbo", and offer prayer and light candles to this end.

Luke 7 I think it is says something like And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required, and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

However in questions like these you are at odds with most evangelicals. I think it is in the nature of man to want to be on the "winning team" so to speak, think of the election polls, ha and to concede to such a doctrine would absolutely throw the established churches into destruction. The only reason people do not believe this and doctrines such as these is that most Christians do not know nor do they read the Bible. Their Pastor does it for them. Christianity as we see it is merely a social club of sort and as a whole out of touch with what the Bible really teaches.

There are other theological questions equally as earth shattering that is causing a ruckus as well, the return of Jesus, before or after the tribulation etc etc ad infinitum.

Another question then becomes whether it is possible to descend in levels, and become more evil in the Spirit world, is a reverse process also possible. Equally a good question I think.

Salvation in the Spirit world seems by all scriptures to be possible, and to all you who will now quote me the verse that says "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment", it seems that this Judgment could also be the judgment we all will have to be judged by, looking at our own life and seeing our life in the shadow of an all mighty God of Love, as it says no flesh shall glory in the presence of God.

I hope this all makes sense, I am in a bit of a hurry so it will have to do.

Regards Mustardseed

Quote from: Gandalf[do you then believe they stay there for ever? ie eternal damnation.. or do you believe that if these people learn the errors of their ways and fully come to terms with their past actions, then they may gravitate upwards as it were, or to use the terminology, become accepted into heaven? If the idea of like + like applies then it follows that if someone stuck in this realm who fully repents of their actions, they will no longer be trapped there, they will naturally gravitate towards the realm of love.

This would be consistant with the original greek version of the bible. I'm sure you have heard about this but the fear-based preachers love to use the notion of *eternal* damnation but it is now fairly well known that the original greek word used was 'Aeon' which denoted a time which could vary, sometimes it meant 1000 years, sometimetimes other lengths of time, but most importantly it ALWAYS denoted a FINITE amount of time..
however in the english (and latin as well i think) versions, *aeon* has been replaced with *eternal*, a simple word change which I'm sure you will agree has profound implications.

I think the original writers used 'aeon' because they wanted to show that people could end up in these regions for periods of time, sometimes long periods depending on their mindset, and so this word, sometimes denoting a period of 1000 years, was used in order to illustrate this possiblility.

If this is true then people will stay there for various lengths of time, basically until they accept the error of their past actions and until the *fully* repent in the core of their heart.. they will then gravitate upwards..
now this depends on the person.. someone might only spend a very short time as they come to realise thier past actions and recognise the love within them almost right away.. but a particluraly stubborn and/or wicked person might stay there literely for an aeon (or longer!) if they consistantly refuse to take account of themselves.. and they will stay there for as long as it takes!

Whats your take on the above?

Doug

Quote from: Gandalf
But do you believe that In order to have a life beyond this one you must believe and accept jesus as your lord and if you do not accept him then you go to hell or cease to exist? the old 'no one comes to the father except through me' routine.

MS has already done a wonderful job of answering these posts and basically said most of what I would have said, so there's not a whole lot for me to add here.

The only thing I'd like to toss out is that I believe Jesus' death and resurrection, and the "rending of the veil" opened up a sort of gateway to the divine that did not exist prior to his lifetime.  This allows all men the opportunity to unite with God in the same way Jesus was able to say "the father and I are one," a way that was not open prior to his ministry.  

The difference between myself and most evangelicals is that when Jesus said "no one comes to the father but through me," I take him to mean that everyone who comes to the father (which is all men, "the testimony given in its proper time" [1 Tim. 2:6]) will do so because of and through the gateway he opened up 2000 years ago, and this is the way God will become "all in all" (1 Cor. 15:28).  This is of course at odds with the typical evangelical take on it that basically says "anyone who wants to get to the father has to get through me first."  I'm fond of saying I prefer to see Jesus as a bridge, not a bouncer.  And I see no reason whether from scripture or logic, to believe that gateway is "for a limited time only!" and will slam shut on a person just because they happened to end a single lifetime without figuring out or saying the magical password, more popularly known as the "sinner's prayer."  No, that gateway will remain open until the lost coin is found, the last sheep is brought back to the flock,  the prodigal son returns home, and God is finally "all in all."

thanks for your interesting posts Mustardseed!

Palehorse_ what do you mean by your idea of a bridge?
That all people will now go via this 'bridge' (ie through jesus) after their death?

Douglas

Palehorse,

QuoteAnd I see no reason whether from scripture or logic, to believe that gateway is "for a limited time only!" and will slam shut on a person just because they happened to end a single lifetime without figuring out or saying the magical password

Heb. 9:27, "And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment"

Hi Ex
I somehow knew that I could count on someone to jump on that one, and you did not let me down. Consider argument the following by a certain Mr. Koch and feel free to comment.

(Quote)
It is claimed that since the "life" of the "righteous", spoken of in Matthew 25:46 is "everlasting", then the "punishment" of the "wicked" must also be "everlasting". This seems unanswerable. But however logical it seems on the surface, the conclusion is unscriptural.

Whenever our reason leads us into direct contradiction to God's Word we may be sure that our logic is at fault. We know that death will be abolished (1Cor.15:26). Not many believe this, but God has said it. Death is the last enemy. This abolition will be accomplished by God making all alive (1Cor.15:22). This will be done at the end of the eons, or ages. The believer had eonian life. He lives until there is no death. Hence he practically has "everlasting" life. But such is not the statement of the Scriptures. They are concerned with the eons. They do not promise us life thereafter, because ALL receive it then. The believer receives the life of the ages, not eternal life.

"The unbeliever receives eonian, or age-abiding, judgment, ending in the second death, UNTIL death is abolished. Then both believer and unbeliever receive "everlasting" life. The Greek words aion (age or eon) and aionios (age-abiding or eonian) are never used of endlessness. Scripture seaks of the "eonian times" (2 Tim.1:9; Titus 1:2). All intelligent Bible scholars know that "the end of the aion" is not the end of the world, but of this age. Each eon has a beginning and an end. Eonian life is limited to the eons.

"The "everlasting punishment" of Matthew 25:46 lasts for that eon, little over a thousand years. The eonian life of the believer lasts for two eons. How can anyone have eonian life after the eons are past? All then have life, for death is also past.

(end quote)

I would also like to ask you to consider this with an open mind to the scripture. Obviously you count yourself somewhat of a scholar and I have read your post with interest. Is it possible to discuss a theory such as the one above, matching scripture with scripture, or is your mind made up?

Regards Mustardseed

Mustardseed, it's interesting that you mention Matthew 25. Manix and I were just discussing over in  another thread about the Parable of the Talents, (http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=16854) and how it is relatively ignored in favor of other simpler, supposedly more important messages. But the parable is very precise in saying that those who utilize their resources and put their gifts into practice will be given God's joy, and those who do not will be banished and have their gifts rescinded.

I mention this because logic and the ability to reason is one of our most prominent gifts. According to the parable, being lazy with it is a punishable sin. But on the other hand, investing in its use will double what we have, and we will all share in each other's wealth.

QuoteWhenever our reason leads us into direct contradiction to God's Word we may be sure that our logic is at fault.

Can we really be sure? Are you sure that that's not intellectual laziness?

Quote from: PalehorseI'm fond of saying I prefer to see Jesus as a bridge, not a bouncer.

I love that statement! Did you make that one up?

Palehorse, as far as time constraints go for salvation and all that. In light of the parable of the talents, do you think there might just be a natural process, where a person who neglects their abilities eventually diminishes themselves, until they just simply disintegrate and cease to exist?

Quote from: GandalfPalehorse_ what do you mean by your idea of a bridge?
That all people will now go via this 'bridge' (ie through jesus) after their death?

Well, not quite that literal, but yeah, pretty much.  Basically, Jesus showed us how to become one with God through his life and works, and opened the way to get there in a metaphysical sense through his death and resurrection.  It's not even necessarily an afterlife thing though, either... Jesus said "I and my Father are one" as well as "the kingdom of Heaven is within you" while he was still alive, and the same sort of divine union has been the goal of all Christian mystics throughout Church history.

As for after death, my take on "judgment day" is connected with the "life review" that's so common to hear about from NDEs.  I believe one views their life from the perspective of everyone it's affected for good or ill, and from God's perspective.  This is the best scenario I can conceive of for satisfying the requirement of justice, since your experience of this will be directly proportional to the sort of life you've lived.  

Other than that, I believe the afterlife is a rather open-ended question.  Jesus said "in my Father's house are many mansions."  Well, the Father's house is all of reality, and the word for mansion, "mone," literally means "dwelling places."  Thus, I believe everyone goes on to whatever places and situation is best suited for his further spiritual development.  And while everyone will reach the same sort of divine union eventually, everyone moves at his own pace regardless of how long it takes.

Quote from: exothenHeb. 9:27, "And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment"

My view of what 'judgment' means is above.  Other than that, I think MustardSeed is on the right track with this one, so I'll just say "what s/he said."

Quote from: TelosI love that statement! Did you make that one up?

Yessir.  ::bows::

Quote from: TelosPalehorse, as far as time constraints go for salvation and all that. In light of the parable of the talents, do you think there might just be a natural process, where a person who neglects their abilities eventually diminishes themselves, until they just simply disintegrate and cease to exist?

I think 1 Cor. 3:12-15 further elaborates on the theme expressed in that parable, so I'll quote it here:

Quote from: Paul of TarsusIf any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's work. If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.

I think we all posess a spark of the divine that is eternal and thus won't ever disintegrate, but at the same time it's up to us what we do with what we've been given in this lifetime.  If we focus solely on materiality and what is temporal, then all our works will perish and we'll take absolutely nothing with us into eternity.  Thus, as we see here, such a person will survive... but will stand in front of God with the knowledge that he's just come out of an entire lifetime no better off than he was when he entered it.  What a waste, no?

On the other hand, if we focus on spirit, modeling ourselves after the revealed divine attributes, having experiences and learning lessons, then we'll end up with something we can take with us after death, and on into whatever existence comes after this one.  Thus, we bring back something to the master that has added to the richness of our own experience, of collective human experience, and ultimately to the Divine, who is experiencing the infinite fullness of Himself through us.

Thus, it makes sense that the master then takes away what the former had and gives the latter even more.  He does this not because He's a big meanie, but because logically the first person is not ready to handle what he was given the first time around, whereas the second person has learned enough and gained enough experience to move on to bigger and better things.

This friggin sucks. I had a rather large response for you Mustardseed and I lost it. I'll try again...ugh. Why don't I ever learn to type it in Word?

Mustardseed,

QuoteI somehow knew that I could count on someone to jump on that one, and you did not let me down.

I wouldn't want to let you down. :)

QuoteThis abolition will be accomplished by God making all alive (1Cor.15:22).

Not only is that not stated in 1 Cor. 15, Rev. 20:14 tells us when death will be abolished:

"14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire."

QuoteThe believer had eonian life. He lives until there is no death. Hence he practically has "everlasting" life. But such is not the statement of the Scriptures. They are concerned with the eons. They do not promise us life thereafter, because ALL receive it then.

Not too sure what is being said here.

QuoteThe believer receives the life of the ages, not eternal life.

I am curious as to why Mr. Koch makes the above points with 1 Cor. 15:22 and 26 as support, but fails to continue on in the chapter. Note the following:

1 Cor. 15:42-44, "42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body."

15:51-55, "51 Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, "DEATH IS SWALLOWED UP in victory. 55 "O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR VICTORY? O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR STING?""

This is where 1 Tim. 1:17 comes in:

"Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen."

For the moment, I will focus on the word 'immortal'. The word is aphthartos in Greek and is the same word used in 1 Cor. 15:52 in speaking of the dead being raised 'imperishable,' or 'incorruptible.'

Quote"The "everlasting punishment" of Matthew 25:46 lasts for that eon, little over a thousand years. The eonian life of the believer lasts for two eons. How can anyone have eonian life after the eons are past? All then have life, for death is also past.

Not sure what is being said here either. He seems to be arguing that no one gets eternal life, only eonian life. But then states that all have life after the eons are past. I don't get it. What am I missing?

QuoteThe Greek words aion (age or eon) and aionios (age-abiding or eonian) are never used of endlessness.

This I do understand and will attempt to refute. For this, I will focus on 'eternal' in 1 Tim. 1:17, quoted above. The Greek literally reads "unto the ages of the ages." This phrase "unto the ages of the ages," is translated as "forever and ever" 16 times in the NT, 12 in reference to God.

Some of importance are as follows:

Rev. 4:9,10 "9 And when the living creatures give glory and honor and thanks to Him who sits on the throne, to Him who lives forever and ever, 10 the twenty-four elders will fall down before Him who sits on the throne, and will worship Him who lives forever and ever, and will cast their crowns before the throne, saying,"

Rev. 10:6, "and swore by Him who lives forever and ever, WHO CREATED HEAVEN AND THE THINGS IN IT, AND THE EARTH AND THE THINGS IN IT, AND THE SEA AND THE THINGS IN IT, that there will be delay no longer"

The 4 times it is not used of God show that punishment is eternal for the unbeliever and life is eternal for the believer, 3 of which I will post:

Rev. 14:11, "And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name."

Rev. 20:10, "And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever."

Rev. 22:5, "And there will no longer be any night; and they will not have need of the light of a lamp nor the light of the sun, because the Lord God will illumine them; and they will reign forever and ever."

Also of importance is:

Rev. 21:4, "4 and He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away."


So, there you go, 2 hours of my time including the second time. I am not sure what I missed from the first time since I did have more, but this should give us something to go on.

QuoteI would also like to ask you to consider this with an open mind to the scripture. Obviously you count yourself somewhat of a scholar and I have read your post with interest.

I always try and keep an open mind, but it is susceptible to what I already believe, as is everyone's mind. I do not fancy myself a scholar of any sort (my lack of understanding of what Mr. Koch was stating proves this ;) ), just a student of theology.

QuoteIs it possible to discuss a theory such as the one above, matching scripture with scripture, or is your mind made up?

Yes, it is quite possible to discuss it. My mind is made up only insofar as that I have found my beliefs to be true through the Scriptures I posted above. However, I try to keep open to correction.

Quote from: PalehoreI think we all posess a spark of the divine that is eternal and thus won't ever disintegrate...

I never understand it when people use the term "divine spark." You say we "possess" it, but is it who we are? Does that mean that there is a non-spark that is who we are, that deteriorates?

"Spark" is so feeble sounding, like a child's toy at a festival. "Mommy, look, I have a spark!" Or as toppings on cookies and cupcakes. "Yay, sparkly yummies!" It's like someone desperately wants to feel a connection with God, but doesn't want to overstate it out of fear.

Just what does a divine spark do?

(Don't worry, I'm going somewhere with this)

Is it consciousness, my memory, my gift of reason, my capacity for empathy, my experience, my ability to experience, my emotional center, my ability to overcome doubt, my ability to imagine, to think symbolically, to be creative, to have dreams, to love and be strong? Is it all of these? If so, that's no spark. It's a fire.

Or is it nothing but a symbol that we are small lights on our own but form more powerful energy when we are united together? In that case, it's not a spark, but a rewording of Vox Populi Vox Dei.

The only meaning I can recognize by the word "spark," is something that lights a fire. And for that, we need materials.

Quote from: PalehorseIf we focus solely on materiality and what is temporal, then all our works will perish and we'll take absolutely nothing with us into eternity... On the other hand, if we focus on spirit, modeling ourselves after the revealed divine attributes, having experiences and learning lessons, then we'll end up with something we can take with us after death, and on into whatever existence comes after this one.

Yes. But as evidenced by our material bodies and our existence in the material world, we seem to need material things in order to learn these lessons. And we know not what they are, for we haven't learned them yet.

Wallace D. Wattles, a methodist in the early 1900s, wrote this in his book, The Science of Getting Rich (http://wikisource.org/wiki/The_Science_of_Getting_Rich).

Quote from: Wallace D. WattlesOnce I saw a little boy sitting at a piano, and vainly trying to bring harmony out of the keys; and I saw that he was grieved and provoked by his inability to play real music. I asked him the cause of his vexation, and he answered, "I can feel the music in me, but I can't make my hands go right." The music in him was the URGE of Original Substance, containing all the possibilities of all life; all that there is of music was seeking expression through the child.

God, the One Substance, is trying to live and do and enjoy things through humanity. He is saying "I want hands to build wonderful structures, to play divine harmonies, to paint glorious pictures; I want feet to run my errands, eyes to see my beauties, tongues to tell mighty truths and to sing marvelous songs," and so on.

All that there is of possibility is seeking expression through men. God wants those who can play music to have pianos and every other instrument, and to have the means to cultivate their talents to the fullest extent; He wants those who can appreciate beauty to be able to surround themselves with beautiful things; He wants those who can discern truth to have every opportunity to travel and observe; He wants those who can appreciate dress to be beautifully clothed, and those who can appreciate good food to be luxuriously fed.

He wants all these things because it is Himself that enjoys and appreciates them; it is God who wants to play, and sing, and enjoy beauty, and proclaim truth and wear fine clothes, and eat good foods. "it is God that worketh in you to will and to do," said Paul.

Reconciling Wattles' view with your "spark" view, God seems like he wants the material creation to burn in the spiritual fire, for it to be given more life. Heraclitus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heraclitus) said something similar, when he asserted that all existence was made out of fire, "Everything flows, nothing stands still."

Quote from: PaulIf any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's work. If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.

That doesn't connect very well with the parable talents at all. The servants weren't building solid structures - they were building liquid wealth.

What does Paul's metaphor suggest we're building? A Ziggurat? The Tower of Babel? A house or shelter, with a lock and key to hold our stuff, to hide in when it rains?

Or are we building a hearth? A place to gather for warmth, to eat good food, and share stories, and play music? A place to safely fall asleep, and dream?

QuoteI never understand it when people use the term "divine spark." You saywe "possess" it, but is it who we are? Does that mean that there is anon-spark that is who we are, that deteriorates?

"Spark" is just the term I happened to use for a concept that has been given many names by many different people over the years.  The Gnostics called it "pneuma."  People on this site might call it one's higher self.  The Buddhists have a term for it that I'm not remembering offhand, heh.  Genesis referred to it as being made in God's image, as well as the breath of life.  Since the Bible occasionally refers to God as a "consuming fire," a piece of that fire, a spark, seemed like as good a term as any.

Whatever you want to call it, I believe it is a literal part of God and also what constitutes our true selves.  So what part of "me" is this, exactly?  Good question, and one that I think is the easiest to address by ruling out what we are not.  This is where the ego, the false self, what the Bible refers to as the carnal man, comes in.  This carnal man is made up of everything about us which is temporary, but which also competes the hardest for our attention during our physical lifetime.  I am not my body, I'm not my past, I'm not my job, I'm not my present circumstances, I'm not my relationships, I'm not even my gender, ethnicity or memories, for all of those things are ultimately temporary.  So once we rule out all these things, what are we left with?  The image of God.  Consciousness.  Creative ability.  Potential.  And to the extent that we've cultivated them, the divine attributes: love, justice, mercy, compassion, and so forth.  I also believe that the sum total of our lessons and experiences figures into our identity somehow, though I haven't reached a satisfactory answer as to how it all works out quite yet.  And, it's possible there are things that should be added that I haven't thought of yet... but I do think this is a pretty good working list so far.

QuoteIt's like someone desperately wants to feel aconnection with God, but doesn't want to overstate it out of fear.

On the contrary, I don't think quantity matters all that much in this instance.  If your true self is literally composed of the same "stuff" as God, does it really matter how much of it you have, especially considering God's infinite nature?  

QuoteThe only meaning I can recognize by the word "spark," is something that lights a fire. And for that, we need materials.

Ahhh, very good observation.  Even though the quote in my sig is from Thomas, which most Christians don't accept, I like it a lot and think it fits well here.  This is another reason I don't think a spark is quite so inadequate -- since a spark is all it takes to catch on and ignite one's whole being.  This fire burns away all the chaff, destroys what is unsalvageable about the ego, purifies and refines what's left, until finally the individual's whole life has been transformed, and he has "put on the new man in Christ."

QuoteYes. But as evidenced by our material bodies and our existence in thematerial world, we seem to need material things in order to learn theselessons. And we know not what they are, for we haven't learned themyet.

I think the answer to this lies in the nature of physical life itself.  The uncertainty, the lack of real security, the pain, the pleasure, the atrocity, the compassion and acts of heroism, the triumphs, the defeats, the need to solve the problem of competition for finite resources in order to survive... I could go on and on.  If my time here on AP has taught me anything, it's that none of those things, and the lessons to be gained from them, are possible in the nonphysical realm.  Thus, in the physical world it could be said that the contrast between light and dark is turned up several notches in order that we might know and appreciate the distinction to our fullest capability.  In comparison, if we had remained in the proverbial garden of Eden, where one never dies, doesn't compete for resources, has full knowledge of his origin, and so on, I submit that we would have remained a race of very shallow beings.  If we had never been temporarily separated from the Source of our existence, we would know appreciate His love (and all His other attributes) about as much as a fish "appreciates" the water it lives in; it would simply be all we knew.

QuoteReconciling Wattles' view with your "spark" view, God seems like hewants the material creation to burn in the spiritual fire, for it to begiven more life. Heraclitus said something similar, when he asserted that all existence was made out of fire, "Everything flows, nothing stands still."

Absolutely!  That's a big part of my own beliefs, and I alluded to it above when I said "the divine is experiencing the infinite fullness of Himself through us."  In short, God is infinite in His creative potential, and He's experiencing every possible permutation of this potential through all He's created, including us.  Through creation, God expresses and explores various attributes of Himself.  For instance, if we're going to say "God is love," then there's the implied question "what does God love?  That's where creation comes in, since something needs to exist to be loved by God ("...and He saw that it was good.").  What is the highest expression of love?  Mutual love.  What's logically required for that?  Someone capable of loving Him back.  That's where we come in.  I submit that if our minds were able to process and comprehend it all, we could take literally anything in creation and match it to the expression of one of God's attributes in much the same way.

Quote
That doesn't connect very well with the parable talents at all. Theservants weren't building solid structures - they were building liquidwealth.

What does Paul's metaphor suggest we're building? A Ziggurat? TheTower of Babel? A house or shelter, with a lock and key to hold ourstuff, to hide in when it rains?

The fact that I wouldn't mind having my own ziggurat nonwithstanding...

IMO you're being too literal with this (especially since Jesus' statement is a parable, which are never literal), and Paul and Jesus are both using different word-pictures to make the same point.  Both are referring to that "great and terrible Day of the Lord," the day of reckoning.  Both are indicating that some people will gain, and others will suffer loss, based on the choices we make in this life.  Thus the question becomes what is there to be gained, and what is there to be lost.  My own answer to that lies in the temporal vs. eternal bit above... but I also think that if we take their words anymore literal than that, this whole thing gets needlessly complicated real quick.

Dear Ex
Ha well yes I must admit that mr Koch was a bit confusing now that I read it. I saw his post in another forum and read over it very fast and cut and pasted just as my phone rang Silly me, now that I read it again I have the same questions that you have, and it does seem muddled, so lets just say I was trying to see if you were awake Ha. I realise that is not a very good way to argue a case so let me look around and find something else or I will have to compile some things myself.

Before we get too far into things and very specific about this particular question I would like to ask you a opinion in general, that allthough it seems to not relate, still carries some weight in the way WE relate to each other.

In my time I have come across many things in the Bible, that does not seem to make sense to me, nor does it seem to be consistant with other more weighty maters in the main body of thegood book. Attitudes such as taking scripture out of context , things God said as promises to a specific person or group, which is now adays being used as a promise to anyone who reads it. It seem evident that God is an active God and was and is alive and intervenes. He does not promise the same to all, but seem to be pleased with certain behaviour and displeased with other behaviour. People seem to use the Word in a random sort of way, and overlook things that are not in alignment what they expect for themself.

If we take a specific scripture like this one

I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. 7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. 8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

Let me see how you see this. Exothen I really ask to want to know and I am not setting a trap, please trust me. I must admit that in my life there has been times and still are where I and good Christian people I have known have been and probably still will be , some of the things above. Maybe for the most of us it is fearful unbelieving idolaters and liars, and even whoremongers and sorcerors. If this is to be taken literal, who is to escape. How does the faith in Christ save you from this, for it is Christ that speaks. Is this literal interpretation or what do you think.

Things like this was for a while quite confusing to me. I would see preachers with the fire and brimstone approach, get caught in adultery and druguse, being slaves of mammon, yet they claim to be Saved by Grace. Do not misunderstand I do believe in Grace, but Revelation is full of statements that may or may not be literel. If some is allegories, pictures and subject to interpretation, who decides which ones, and if Revelation is how about the rest.

It seems to me and I have adopted the attitude that the Bible as we know it is using a very specific encryption. In modern day encryption you use keys. Both the sender and reciever have to have one, and only if their keys match can they read and understand each other. Noone can read without being one, and it is not until we are one with God through living in LOVE we understand the bigger picture. This is not works but it is immersing ourselves in HIM, becoming one by taking on His Divine nature.

Many try to use the word without using it for what it was intended but fail. Gods words seem to be specifically made (John 1) for loving people into heaven not scaring them in to hell. Any attempt, as you know,  to use the power of god for personal vindiction pride power gain or just to be right is bound to fail.

It is with this bigger picture in mind I say, I know Gods spirit through the Love I feel from His son. I do not see it consistant to damn people to an everlasting torment of their soul for having (like David) committed adultery, lied etc. It is however possible to me that people who consistantly do the above create a bad habit that they will have to overcome, eventually here or there. This seem consistant with my faith. This is also why I believe that there must be more to death than most Christians want to think. If there is not, heaven will be a lonely place, like the ol' sinner said "Heaven is ok , but there is noplace for meeting old friends like Hell", just a jokeok.

What is your take on the above, I would be very interesten in your opinion.

Kind Regards

Mustardseed

Mustardseed,

Great post.

QuotePeople seem to use the Word in a random sort of way, and overlook things that are not in alignment what they expect for themself.

Yeah, that is a huge problem with most/all Christian churches and all denominations - ignore what you don't like or causes you difficulty.

QuoteLet me see how you see this. Exothen I really ask to want to know and I am not setting a trap, please trust me.

I certainly trust you Mustardseed. :)  I do see this passage as being literal, but there is much lost in the translation from Greek to English. As you may know, Greek has 7 tenses whereas English has 3. This allows the Greek to present things as continuously happening, and I think that this is what is happening here in Revelation – one who continuously lives in those sins.

We are all sinners and we all sin everyday. Do Christians have fear? Certainly, but we shouldn't:

1 John 4:18, "There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love." (I'll post the Scriptures for those who may follow along.)

Do Christians sometimes not believe? Of course. Commit idolatry; lie? Yes. Now, no Christian should be involved with sorcery or whoremongering, period. You get the idea of what I am saying.

This passage is referring to those whose life is characterized by those sins. And certainly there are others listed in a couple of passages in the NT. The whole point of the gospel, as you know, is that through Christ we can be saved from the penalty of sin, which is death/separation from God. This should always result in a life not characterized by sin, that is, continually sinning. I'm getting lost in my thoughts, so I'll post a couple of verses which should shed some light on what I trying to explain.

1 John 3:5-6, "5 You know that He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin. 6 No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has seen Him or knows Him."

1 John 5:18, "18 We know that no one who is born of God sins; but He who was born of God keeps him, and the evil one does not touch him."

All that comes after John stated this:

1 John 1:8-10, "8 If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us."

So what is John saying? He is saying that anyone who is "born of God" (ie. a follower of Christ) sins, but that their life will not be characterized by sin. From what I have heard and read, that is backed up by the Greek, but I haven't learnt Greek yet for myself so I'll leave it at that.

That is what I believe it is saying and I am quite sure it is correct. I should also clarify what I mean by "we all sin everyday" and "a life characterized by sin." Let's say that I lie today, tomorrow, and everyday for a week. Does that make me a liar? Not if I ask forgiveness and am truely repentant.

A liar, as the passage in Revelation would speaking of, is someone who continually lies, feels no remorse, and does not seek God's forgiveness - that is "a life characterized by sin."

That is all the time I have at the moment, but I will certainly try to answer the rest tonight as those are even weightier points you make.

This is a very good, thought-provoking topic, thank you for the great discussion.

Palehorse, thank you for the reply.

QuoteIMO you're being too literal with this (especially since Jesus' statement is a parable, which are never literal),...

You're probably right. However, the parable of the talents strikes me as particularly noteworthy because of its implications for economics.

Since I am a student of economics, I couldn't help but notice how Jesus' parable relied on the principle of "opportunity cost," the cost of forgoing an opportunity. Or, in other words, it's the cost of doing nothing with what you're given. In trade theory, economies are most efficient and most prosperous when everyone minimizes their opportunity cost. Since resources would be distributed efficiently, everyone would be rich.

When Jesus said that it's harder for a rich man to get into heaven than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, I believe he was referring to the rich people who horde their resources and do not trade with them - those who do not contribute to the dynamic of society and nature.

Regarding Paul... the more I read the New Testament, the more it seems like the books are in order of importance. I'm already hesitant about Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John putting words into God's mouth, much less a lunatic convert from Tarsus ;)

Dear Exothen
Well that would my point exactly. It seems to me that regarding the many things you talked about you have to admit that you are guessing. You assume that "this is the way it must work". I cannot blame you and do it myself, but here lies the core. We don't know. Based on your own upbringing you fx take a extreme offense to sorcery and whore mongering, but is there any difference in sin...honest . No there is not sin is sin. and if you are guilty of one thing you are judged as having broken the entire law.

James 2:10 - For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.  

None can come and stand before Jesus and say OK Lord I did lie and shoplift but I am not like that prostitute there. No flesh shall Glory in His presence.

And while we are at it Exothen are you stubborn at times and do you sometimes not do the things God asks you to do, if so welcome to the club we all fail, but know this

1 Samuel 15:23- For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry.

Where is the limit how much lying can be forgiven? when to you become a liar, the first day you are not sorry? or does it happen along the way somewhere?. How about a prostitute that is not sorry and feels she is just making a living ? According to this scripture she is damned, and for sure do not expect to see any lawyers or politicians, maybe some wives who consistently fake an orgasm will have to burn as well. I am just taking a light approach here OK

As you see there are some problems to consider with different scriptures, and I do not believe that the interpretation can be had without being fully immersed in Gods Spirit ruled by His love. Then we can see the truth. We can say naturally he wont let a mother and wife go to hell for consistently faking or lying, nor will he send a little Indonesian or Hindu boy to hell who never knew anything else than his little village till the tsunami came and he died 10 years old.

We KNOW that. Why? because it is inconsistent with HIS NATURE for we know He is LOVE fairness forgiveness understanding etc how do we know he is all these things, because we live with Him  day by day.

Regards Mustardseed

I guess from reading both perspectives of christianity as put forward by Mustardseed and Exothen (although you both agree on much as well!), that i feel that Exothen's vision of god does not come across as the kind of god that i would accept as being a god of unconditional love and forgiveness, which is what he is promoted as.. Exothen definately comes from the fear based perspective, even although he would deny this i think.. but as soon as you have a god rejecting people who have sinned for ever, punishing people, which he does.. the doctrine of atonement reflects this, then i get turned off.

There are many other theological interpretations of christianity's central theme ie  Jesus' sacrifice of himself for humanity, than the vicarious atonement theology.

Try this:
god incarnated himself as Jesus in order to preach against civilisations drug of choice ie violence (among other things), the drug of choice of the roman empire and unfortunatly is just as relevant in our world today as it was then. God and civilisation were then set on a collision course..
God sacrificied himself (though jesus) as a warning to humanity ie to say: 'look.. when i became incarnate you killed me.. think what you will do to each other'. A message as relevant now as it was then.

The atonement of sin idea just makes god out to be vengeful which i dont accept.

Just my take on it..
Start with the theology of vicarious atonement and you end up with the film of Mel Gibson.

Douglas

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v718/psients/palehorse.jpg)

Dear Exothen
I have been watching this topic and have asked you to reply to my questions. I am very open to you and your insight but you have not had time to answer yet though I eve sent you PMs. consider your own statements from another thread

Exothen:  Nothing like picking and choosing what one wants to believe with no regard as to whether it is true or not. That is a very dangerous approach.

Couldn't agree more

Love to hear from you

Regards Mustardseed

QuoteSince I am a student of economics, I couldn't help but notice howJesus' parable relied on the principle of "opportunity cost," the costof forgoing an opportunity. Or, in other words, it's the cost of doing nothing with what you're given. In trade theory, economies are most efficient and most prosperous when everyone minimizes their opportunitycost. Since resources would be distributed efficiently, everyone wouldbe rich.

Your input from your background in economics is awesome, and really serves to make the point that we all have something unique to share about the divine from our diverse perspectives and various disciplines.  Excellent stuff, that... especially since I'm so mathematically challenged that I'd never be able to see it that way on my own.

But to this I would say that the principle of opportunity cost doesn't necessarily have to refer to material assets.  It could also refer to the "currency" of the universe -- experiences and that which is gained from having them.  If no one ever wasted an opportunity to learn and grow, just think how rich all of us would be in the spiritual sense as a result.  So, I don't think your interpretation is incompatible with my own thoughts on exactly what kind of wealth Jesus is indicating here.  As for your comments about the rich man who hordes his wealth, I would liken it to the folks who claim to have a monopoly on truth... and have thus forfeited any opportunity to grow or contribute to the greater reality.

QuoteRegarding Paul... the more I read the New Testament, the more itseems like the books are in order of importance. I'm already hesitantabout Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John putting words into God's mouth, much less a lunatic convert from Tarsus

Hah!  IMO this is especially true considering the books that were traditionally supposed to have been written by Paul, but... weren't.  Such is why I'm no fan of biblical inerrancy though.  While I believe these people to be generally authoritative considering their firsthand (or secondhand, as the case may be) knowledge of Christ, I still consider them to be subject to the same critical analysis as anything else.  As for Paul, in a strange sort of way, his wackiness is a point in his favor for me.  Meaning: if God can accomplish such things with the self-proclaimed "worst of sinners," then maybe there's hope for me after all.  :P

As for that lil graphic you made, that made my day. :D  I like what you did with my icon, too... I had to shrink the original down to the point where all the details get mushed together to use it here, but I may just have to crop and upload yours, lol.

QuoteStart with the theology of vicarious atonement and you end up with the film of Mel Gibson.

...And I think you might have to make another one.  Gandalf shoots, he scores.  :D

Dear Exothen

I just wanted to let you know that I am still waiting for your reply. I noticed that you have been making other posts but have missed my previous question and since it questions something very central in your (and my own) belief system, I am in two minds. I am not assuming that you are avoiding the question, but most likely have not noticed it, but for the sake of those who read your comments on so many other subjects concerning their own faith, it might be interesting to hear your comment on your own.

As you probably realize you are becoming a bit of a "expert" in your particular field of fundamental Christianity, though you most likely do not think of yourself this way. It seems that a lot of people have questions that you have so far answered well, showing the scriptual context and doctrinal explanations (though it seems evident they do not agree with you) So all that taken into considerations, I am still very curious about your answer and look forward to hearing your input on said matter.

Regards Mustardseed

Palehorse, that was great! I can't say I disagree with anything. I'm glad we had a chance to have this discussion.

QuoteI can't say I disagree with anything. I'm glad we had a chance to have this discussion.

Me too, friend.  :)

How about you read the Bible and then you'll be able to decide for sure if you believe in them or not.

Dear FH
I am not sure if you address me or someone in particular on the thread but for my own part I have actually read the Bible a lot, possibly more than most. I am not sure what you are trying to infer in your post could you be a Little more clear.

Regards Mustardseed