being written down
Timothy Sutter
consider these;
the oldest extant -copies- of both
Plato and Aristotle seem to date
from the 9th century a.d.
==
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0075-4390(196101%2F06)24%3A1%2F2%3C45%3ALAMSIT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-O
http://tinyurl.com/2xo7x5 <--- [better url]
"By the ninth century, the Byzantine renaissance,
from which our oldest Plato manuscripts that are
still extant date, logical schemata comprised an
important part of the funded footnotes to Plato"
==
==
http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/ljs/PageLevel/index.cfm?option=view&ManID=ljs101
Aristotle (384-322 BC) became in the course of the Middle Ages...
...
Aristotle’s works were mostly known, if at all, through
the translations and commentaries of Beothius (c. 480-c. 524),
author of the De Consolatione Philosophiae.
...
The oldest surviving manuscript of the text dates from the
beginning of the ninth century, now in the Casa Madre
dei Padri Maristi in Rome,
===
these 'oldest manuscripts' are well more
than a thousand years after the dates
claimed for their authors.
no "originals" are extant.
but you rarely ever hear anyone suggesting that
the books of Plato and Aristotle are unreliable
-because- they are copies and not originals,
and you rarely, if at all ever hear anyone suggesting
that Plato and Aristotle's works were actually -written-
in the 9th century a.d. over a thousand years after the
supposed authors were merely purported to have lived.
there is no reason to suggest that it is
impossible for ancient texts to be copied
correctly before the original paper
has disintegrated.
it's not just picking nits,
and look at this;
==
http://www.religionfacts.com/judaism/texts/talmud.htm
Another important Jewish text besides the Tanakh is the Talmud,
a collection of rabbinical writings that interpret, explain
and apply the Torah scriptures. The Talmud was written
between the second and fifth century CE, but Orthodox Jews
believe it was revealed to Moses along with the Torah
and preseved orally until it was written down.
==
this is -written- after the time of Jesus Christ.
and yet some people say huge parts of it were
transmiited orally for over a millenia before
ever being written down.
just some observations...
Timothy Sutter
reflected in God's own Word.
God is Breathing, eternally, God.
when the breathing Spirit moves forward
in some utterance, this Word brings
the Spirit in to a 'new place'
a 'new place' that comes in to being
simultaneously with the utterance.
before this beginning, God knows God
as the private inspiration of God.
before this beginning, Love is a
private matter known only in God.
one can suggest that The Word which is
always present in Spirit and with Spirit
summarily formulates an encapsulation
of God's own Spirit, and,
as God speaks
this unseen Word, that which was not seen,
becomes seen, and God is beginning to show
that which God has always known.
in this beginning, of material and
non-material structures, is seen the
evidence of the unseen Word
and, as
the unseen Word is made manifest,
so also, the Spirit is realized
in this 'new place'
a replication of Structure
in a 'new' structure
Timothy Sutter
made by God and conceived in
the human Mary,
is
different from the multiple
declarations made by God which
resulted in the material universe.
which is to say: the material universe
is brought forth in discrete stages,
whereas
Jesus,
that ultimate manifestation of The Word,
came about in one complete declaration.
one minor detail;
there is first, a declaration which
results in the conception in Mary,
and later, two declarations
of support for the human
being so formed,
which is to say, the thunder
from the blue which states;
"this is My Son in whom
i am well pleased"
and then;
"this is My Son, listen to Him"
and then, Jesus is -declared-
"first born from the dead"
but each time here,
it's stamping the same
general remark upon
the human race.
a remark of God's own completeness and
Holiness upon a material creation that
was made to stand apart from God, suffered
paling anguish in comparison to God, and
is redeemed to a station of Unity in God.
Timothy Sutter
carries an exacting image of God's own presence,
then, the multiple declarations made in bringing
forth the material universe, each resemble
particular manifestations of Theistic attribution,
whereas, that singular declaration which
conceives Christ, is the Spirit made Word
made material.
God has taken hold of this 'new place' and
the multiple manifestations all reside as One.
The Word made manifest is God,
but, a summed duplication of God is not God,
this drama serves first to demonstrate
with crystal clarity that God is God
and there can be no other God.
while God knew that God's own Spirit
would be presented with undeniable
clarity in God's own Word,
God can also be aware that any summation
of all Theistic attribution would remain
short of the Fullness of Deity in Love,
but, any lack of recognition of God's
Ultimate Preeminence in All
found in any summed
duplication of God's attributes must
be met with the strictest Judgement
until such time as God's own Mercy
is to be correspondingly bestowed.
to be 'not God' is not a crime.
to be 'not God' and not comprehend,
must be treated as a crime.
such chastizement is unutterably profound
subsequently, the removal of all blot is
Joy unspeakable and full of Glory.
Timothy Sutter
founded in that Love which human beings
aspire to comprehend.
God spins out a governing authority
as independant Beings.
before we examine the purpose to which
these independant Beings were spun out,
we would consider that in spinning out
these structural elements as independant
characteristics, these elements first take
on the attribute of 'not God' inasmuch as
they become as creations, and therefore,
God must redeem these structural elements,
themselves, in to full unity with God.
what could be considered strange, is that
any of these God breathed characteristics
could turn around, and view God as subject
to -it's- authority.
so, now, looking at this view, we can
easily see a potential for God's own
creation to turn on God and convince
itself that God belongs in
-its- dominion.
the Creator being ruled by a creation.
such authority as God already possesses
in God's own Perfect Will in Love.
God acts according to God's
own Will founded in Love.
such a turnaround could found a Selfish
elevation which would nullify ·that·
creation's claim to Love, the defining
characteristic of God.
should such a turnaround occur, its reckoning
as a potential hazzard would already have been
recognized, but still, it will remain as a
controversy in any creation that would desire
to subjugate that perfect Will of God.
in so doing,
·that· creation stymies its own freedom.
in so doing,
·that· creation distorts it's
view of Self to deny that
perfect Will of God.
in so doing,
·that· creation captures itself in a snare.
to aspire to God by denying that to which it aspires
it must deny it's own God breathed characteristics
and distort it's own view of it's own authority.
meanwhile, God is still God and only Loves.
[yes, God's disdain -for- hatred is because
it doesn't -match- God's Love]
[a subtle distinction]
but, ·that· unruly ruler has fallen headlong
in to a morass of irrational justifications.
whereas, ideally it would have it's
independant will in submission to
the unity of God's perfect
Will in Love,
it now has two ·competing· wills
it has birthed an indecisive
competition with it·self which
it also translates into an
adversarial position against
God, its Creator.
Self destruction is immenent
freeze it there for a while...
Timothy Sutter
> freeze it there for a while...
> God acts according to God's own Will
> founded in that Love which human beings
> aspire to comprehend.
we could call this True autonomy.
behaving independantly according to personal will,
coupled with designs only to carry those admirable,
harmless and benevolent actions borne out of Love.
as God grants autonomy to its creations, we would
not consider it harmless and benevolent to allow
any creation to fixate on its own attributes
to the point of self destructive idolatry.
and so, should such a situation arise, during the
subsequent course of extracting such a creation
from it's self induced strugglings, if God appears
to 'smite' that creation with harsh criticisms,
we may still conclude that these criticisms are
borne out of an admirable Love.
even if that criticism involves removal
of autonomy and exacting demonstrations
of shortfall.
so, we should conclude that God's meting
out Justice is itself borne out of Love
and alone accomplishes the most Merciful ends.
it is not that God's work is purposefully 'booby-trapped'
but it is as if, in spinning out autonomous figures,
God stands at the door when those autonomous figures
seek an immediate return to the domain of God,
and now, God at the door represents a stumbling stone.
there is no way around God at the door,
because God is the door, and the desire
towards True autonomy is all pervasive.
there is this fine line tripwire which
is simply inherent in the situation.
in God as perfect Unity in Love the good
of the neighbor is exactly the good of God,
but, as God spins out these autonomous figures,
these new creatures must confront the motivating
forces towards True autonomy coupled with the
overriding necessity to cede 'all others' their
own personal autonomy.
and so, when these newly spun autonomous figures
are able to see their own good in and as the good
of all others, they succeed, but as any see their
own personal good as of primary and even sole
importance, they fall short.
and i mean, fall headlong over the stumbling stone.
and so, what may seem to us as
unbearably harsh chastizements,
is simply God falling with the stumbler,
and being there to lift 'it' back up
in newness of Life.
God never pushed it down, it fell.
and God alone can make it rise again.
cut away to bugs bunny;
'london bridge is falling down
falling down falling down...'
Arise; sir loin of beef,
arise; duke of chestnut,
arise; oil of watercress...
'''got lotsa stamina'''
just remember, these are the king's carrots.
sorry, i couldn't help it, my mind wandered...
anyway, i know this doesn't matter
to anyone but me, but it does
matter to me.
i'm not quite finished...
with this bit.
ThomMadura
> see, God is already perfectly
> reflected in God's own Word.
>
> God is Breathing, eternally, God.
Al nice claims
WHen YOU can provide PROOF of what YOU are claiming - BY all means post
it here and alert the media
Until then - claiming that you know a word of god- is unsupported BY you
because you still have yet to prove the existence of a supernatural god
as well.
Timothy Sutter
> > see, God is already perfectly
> > reflected in God's own Word.
> > God is Breathing, eternally, God.
ThomMadura wrote:
> Al nice claims
> WHen YOU can provide PROOF of what YOU are claiming - BY all means post
> it here and alert the media
> Until then - claiming that you know a word of god- is unsupported BY you
> because you still have yet to prove the existence of a supernatural god
> as well.
aside from the implication that
God has not appeared to people in
a spectacular array of light and such,
when some say that God has not been
'proven' to exist, they mean they have
no referrence to mechanical measuring
devices which detect God;
what physical measurement?
what machine apparatus have you
designed that will measure
such a phenomenon?
what, exactly, is the nature of
the phenomenon for which you
seek physical measurement?
in lieu of appropriate answers to these,
your problem is simply one of disbelief
in a thing that you have not
directly experienced.
will you suggest that the flavor chemist
and the perfume chemist are not involved
in scientific discovery?
of course not, as these are two very
important branches of chemistry,
a "hard science."
so anyway, generally, in flavor chemistry,
they run chemical samples from known natural
products thru a machine apparatus like a mass
spectrometer or an infra red or nuclear magnetic
resonance spectrometer to determine the chemical
make-up of a given flavor, say bananas.
they determoine that one of the main
components of the flavor of bananas
is ethyl acetate;
CH3-C[O]O-CH2CH3
now, they synthesize this chemical
from available sources and then,
*they ask people to taste the stuff
to see if it tastes like bananas*
why?
because there's no machine apparatus
that can tell you if that stuff
tastes like anything.
just don't talk about "science"
and "measurement" when you mean,
mechanical detection.
when you develop the mechanical device
that can detect God, and it doesn't
detect God, then you can speak.
you'll simply have to rely, in part,
on the descriptions of human beings
for your "measurements" in much the
same way as the flavor chemist must
rely on human beings to tell [him]
if [his] compounds taste "good" or not.
but, a given experiment designed to allow
you to ascertain the experience of God
is possible and plausible.
and if you don't gain an audiance with the
Holy Spirit the first time, you'll have to
do the experiment over and over till
you get it right.
and central to this, is greeting
the words of Faith with faith.
no faith, no experience.
no experience, no knowledge.
no knowledge, keep silent.
if God's Holy Spirit is detectable
in and by human beings, then this
represents a phenomenon and
physical measurement.
to say otherwise is blind assumption that
the human entity is incapable of divulging
proper 'scientific' data.
which is nonsense, as most real discovery
is taken and delineated and accepted by
none other than the human entity.
go drop a stone from the tower of Pisa,
who is taking a measurement? get a sophisticated
listening device to do the same thing,
now who is taking the data? still the
human being, as the machine apparatus
is merely a device to extend
our capabilities.
now, if you cannot design an appropriate device
to extend your mechanical capabilitues in the
area of God detection, then you are simply at
a primitive stage in your machine designing
abilities and need further study before you
can ever make some blanket statement to the
effect that God is not physically detectable
because God is most certainly detectable
by the human entity.
what you have to realize is that God has
placed something -like- a "terminate and
stay resident" program in your being that
behaves -like- an "analog to digital converter."
there is some sort of 'spirit' in man that
remains in the background, that is 'resident'
but not running until activated by
the 'words of faith'
-then- this 'spirit' becomes active
and converts the 'analog' signal from
God, thru the Holy Spirit, into a 'digital'
signal that your cortical brain structure
can interpret as a meaningful presence.
you don't even know it is there
until it becomes activated.
now see, i cannot personally switch on
your 'spirit' and pour the Holy Spirit
into your life, but i can present
statements which can trigger your
TSR programs to activate the
A-to-D converter.
here's someone, with whom i find
agreement, describing a phenomenon
like this "TSR--A-to-D converter"
of which i speak.
----------------
1 Corinthians 13:1 and 14:3-4,13
Though I speak with the unknown
spiritual languages of men and
of angels....
He who speaks in unknown spiritual languages
does not speak to men but to God, in the spirit
he speaks mysteries, for no one understands him;
He who speaks in an unknown spiritual language
teaches himself, if I pray in an unknown
spiritual language, my spirit prays, but
my understanding is unfruitful.
Therefore let him who speaks in an unknown
spiritual language pray that he may interpret.
What is the conclusion then? I will pray with
the spirit, and I will also pray with
the understanding.
----------------
notice that Paul describes a distinction
between the "spirit" and the "understanding"
also notice that you can edify
your "self" in a manner which
your "understanding" is unaware.
hold on a minute, now look at this.
same passage different portion;
----------------
1 Corinthians 14:1-3,12,39
since you are zealous for spiritual gifts,
let it be for the teaching of the faithful
that you seek to excel. Let all things be
done for such edification;
Pursue love, and desire spiritual gifts, but
especially that you may speak an understanding
of God which comes from God. He who utters such
divine revelations speaks comfort, encourages
and edifies the faithful.
desire earnestly to understand and speak
divine revelations, and do not forbid to
speak with unknown spiritual languages.
----------------
now he's suggesting that comprehending
spiritual knowledge of God with your
corporeal "understanding" is of
primary importance.
that is, understanding God
with your "understanding"
but look, he's also suggesting that
you may find yourself speaking with
God in a language that is unknown
to your conscious understanding
but -not- unknown to your background
"TSR" program which behaves as
an A-to-D converter.
a trivial example can be found in a
very general description of the manner
in which your computer operates.
your computer operates programs that are
written in a so-called "high level language"
and these high level languages translates
that into a machine code assembly language
and finally into machine code ones and zeroes.
the machine only "understands"
"yes" and "no" which is fed to it
in the form of a "one" and a "zero"
but the machine is able to interpret
the "high level language" of the
computer programmer by use
of compiler programs.
within details.
in a similar manner, there is an intimate
connection between your "spirit" and your
corporeal "understanding," even if the
'two' are non-identical, and both see
growth and aligniment with God's
own Personal Presence.
and now, what would be nice, would be
for that "spirit" part of -you- to relay
the message to what amounts to your
'corporeal' understanding, and reform
-that- thing of -you- in the
image of Christ.
as this should relieve any conflict
which your corporeal "understanding"
may place on your "spirit" inhibitting
your spiritual growth.
a spiritual growth that will further
cleanse the conscience of "dead works"
bringing your -actions- into a greater
conformity with your understandable
"intentions".
understandable intentions which more
and more closely align with a Spirit
who knows no -want-
so, it's like your understandable intentions
are the nexus point between this "spirit"
and your corporeal "understanding".
like, your 'spirit' shows
itself in your -intentions-
and your corporeal understanding
shows itself in your actions.
and you'd like to align a purity of
intentions to blameless actions.
each feeding off the other feeding
from the root of the vine which is God.
----------------
1 Corinthians 14:33
For God is not the author
of confusion but of peace
----------------
and that's what Jesus -was-
by a peculiarity of birth, Jesus' "spirit"
-was- The Holy Spirit and Jesus' corporeal
understanding became perfectly
aligned with -that-.
# as this should relieve any conflict
# which your corporeal "understanding"
# may place on your "spirit" inhibitting
# your spiritual growth.
right, a "conflict" very much -like- a
"yes = no" statement in a computer program.
if you tell a machine "yes = no" it won't operate.
in similar manner, your personal conflict
inhibits growth and, in effect, shuts down
your 'spirit' processors.
personal conflict which has "yes = no"
statements as an underpinning.
like i said before,
this sort of situation arises when
you operate under the idea that "good"
is getting what you want and "bad"
is not getting what you want.
this enables you to seek a "good" for
your self at the expense of carrying
out an action which you would consider
"bad" if it was done -to- you.
"good = bad"
"yes = no"
system failure
----------------
1 Corinthians 14:39
desire earnestly to understand and speak
divine revelations, and do not forbid to
speak with unknown spiritual languages.
----------------
ok, so, there still is a definite
benefit to having your 'spirit' edified
in an unvarnished manner where you may
have blood in your eyes and so, you
wouldn't want to immediately sully
an understanding of a thing before
that thing had a chance to work within
your 'spirit' and seep into your
knowledgeable understanding more
slowly removing the blood from your
eyes so that you can see more clearly.
like that 'spirit' "TSR" program had
been dormant in you and when it was
awakened by the words of Faith it needed
refreshement and enlivening with waters
from the fountain of God's own Presence.
and so, that 'spirit' is living and growing too.
so, don't -discourage- the utterrance
in other unknown spiritual languages
as this can be viewed as a direct
sampling from God to you without your
own personal viewpoint getting in
the way of a clear understanding.
which also suggests that you should be
on the lookout for virulent doctrines
taking up residence and corrupting
your understanding of God.
corruptions which display themselves
in a variety of "yes = no" statements.
make no room for this sort of thing.
it is truly for your own good.
thank you for listening.
ThomMadura
> God acts according to God's own Will
> founded in that Love which human beings
> aspire to comprehend.
THAT depends on How you define the word "love"
THe god of the bible was a mass murderer - committed infanticide - and
genocide - and even gave the directions on how to PROPERLY sell your
daughter into slavery. HT god of the bible was hundreds of times more
evil than Charles Manson - and those who would worship this scum are stupid.
THE god of the bible - where numbers are mentioned - murdered over two
million. He told his people to DASH the heads of the infants and
children of the people they conquered and ENJOY doing it.
He also murdered untold numbers of infants and babies - and children too
young to be responsible in the Passover - and the great flood.
THe idea that murdering infants and children is "love" is simply a
bastardization of the word.
And anyone who would worship such a monster as "love" has no
comprehension of what love is.
THankfully - these things NEVER happened. THE great flood never happened
- we can prove there was NO worldwide flood of that magnitude.The story
of creation has SO many things provably wrong as to make it not even a
fairy tale - it is nonsense in the extreme
ANd no supernatural gods are proven to exist.
Timothy Sutter
> > God acts according to God's own Will
> > founded in that Love which human beings
> > aspire to comprehend.
ThomMadura wrote:
> THAT depends on How you define the word "love"
here's an interesting bit;
notice, it's the "word of YHWH"
i'll place a few comments
after the passage.
further citations after some comments
should lend clarity to the understanding
of BaaL as well.
-----
Jeremiah 34:8-11
This is the word that came to Jeremiah from YHWH,
after King Zedekiah had made a covenant with all
the people who were at Jerusalem to proclaim liberty
to them: that every man should set free his male
and female slave--a Hebrew man or woman--that no one
should keep a Jewish brother in bondage. Now when
all the princes and all the people, who had entered
into the covenant, heard that everyone should set free
his male and female slaves, that no one should keep
them in bondage anymore, they obeyed and let them go.
But afterward they changed their minds and made
the male and female slaves return, whom they had
set free, and brought them into subjection as
male and female slaves.
12-14
Therefore the word of YHWH came to Jeremiah from YHWH,
saying, "Thus says YHWH, the God of Israel: "I made a
covenant with your fathers in the day that I brought
them out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage,
saying, "At the end of seven years let every man set free
his Hebrew brother, who has been sold to him; and when
he has served you six years, you shall let him go free
from you." But your fathers did not obey Me nor incline
their ear.
15-16
Then you recently turned and did what was right in My sight
--every man proclaiming liberty to his neighbor; and you made
a covenant before Me in the house which is called by My name.
16Then you turned around and profaned My name, and every one
of you brought back his male and female slaves, whom he had
set at liberty, at their pleasure, and brought them back into
subjection, to be your male and female slaves.'
17
"Therefore thus says YHWH: "You have not obeyed Me in
proclaiming liberty, every one to his brother and every
one to his neighbor. Behold, I proclaim liberty to you,'
says YHWH
-----
"you have not obeyed me in proclaiming Liberty"
-that's- what YHWH says.
"behold, I proclaim Liberty to you"
-that's what YHWH says.
does you see that?
this entire incident says that the people
failed to incline their ears to the ways
of YHWH and did -not- proclaim Liberty and
held their own people as slaves against
the dictates of The Law.
the word of YHWH which came to Jeremiah
-cites- The Law [verse 12-14] and then faults
the people for not living up to that, so,
it's the same YHWH and not some different
YHWH than the YHWH who spoke to Moses.
just so -that's- clear.
but now, look at this;
-----
Jeremiah 2:8
The priests did not say, "Where is YHWH?' And those
who handle the law did not know Me; The rulers also
transgressed against Me; The prophets prophesied
by Baal, And walked after things that do not profit.
Jeremiah 2:23
"How can you say, "I am not polluted, I have not
gone after the Baals'? See your way in the valley;
Know what you have done: You are a swift dromedary
breaking loose in her ways,
Jeremiah 9:14
but they have walked according to the dictates
of their own hearts and after the Baals, which
their fathers taught them,"
[speaking of the neighboring nations]
Jeremiah 12:16
And it shall be, if they will learn carefully
the ways of My people, to swear by My name,
"As YHWH lives,' as they taught My people
to swear by Baal, then they shall be
established in the midst of My people.
Jeremiah 23:13
"And I have seen folly in the prophets
of Samaria: They prophesied by Baal And
caused My people Israel to err.
Jeremiah 23:27
who try to make My people forget My name
by their dreams which everyone tells his
neighbor, as their fathers forgot
My name for Baal.
-----
look, YHWH is chastizing the people thru Jeremiah
for abandoning YHWH for ...BAAL, -and- he faults
them for -not- proclaiming personal Liberty and
freedom and enslaving their own brothers
-against- the issuance of statements thru Moses.
this inferrence is not even
a hop much less a grand leap.
YHWH says;
'proclaim liberty'
the people -err- and enslave their own brothers,
and YHWH says,
"you have wandered off in error after BAAL'
therefore, not -only- do we -see- YHWH
proclaiming Liberty if preferrence to slavery,
but we see YHWH saying that BAAL was
the error into which the people had fallen.
-therefore-
we can now trace back all referrence to BAAL
as a definite indication as to the source
of the Slavery which is opposed to YHWH's
proclamation of Liberty.
-and- therefore,
see YHWH's severe antagonism against
BAAL as a condemnation of Slavery,
in no uncertain terms.
YHWH didn't change.
YHWH proclaims Liberty.
what we may also infer is that YHWH
gives -time- to remedy a situation,
but if that situation is not remedied,
YHWH is right there to set you back a step.
i have some more bits on this...
> Exodus 21:1-4: "If thou buy an Hebrew servant,
> Leviticus 25:44-46: "Your male and female slaves
> are to come from the nations around you; from
> them you may buy slaves.
> Deuteronomy 15:12-18: "And if thy brother,
> an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee,
> Exodus 21:7: "And if a man sell his daughter to be
> a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do."
what you will see is that your problem
merges two things, slavery and warfare,
but in Torah, the two are not so joined.
what you may fail to recognize, is that it was
known among the world for people to sell themselves
to other people simply because they could not feed
themselves for themselves and could not
find any other way to make a life
for themselves.
this is fact.
and Exodus 21:1-4: describes something like this.
a person who sells himself to a kinsman is not
to be considered a lifelong indentured servant
but only six years.
---
Leviticus 25:39-40
"'If one of your countrymen becomes poor
among you and sells himself to you, do not
make him work as a slave. He is to be
treated as a hired worker or a temporary
resident among you; he is to work for
you until the Year of Jubilee."
---
also, it was also known throughout the world
that parents would sell their children to
other people for money.
a very common practice, in that, the
parents were said to own their children.
also, people became indentured because of personal debts.
that is, people rang up big bills and found
themselves in debt to such an extent that they
had to 'sell themselves' as it were, in order
to make restitution for a debt they had incurred.
at any rate, -you- are drawing a conclusion
that you have not the right to draw here,
and that conclusion is that, by necessity,
those who found themselves the property of
other people, were acting -against- their
own will, when as i said, it was common
practice to sell yourself into an
indentured servitude.
and, we see, YHWH discourages the practice
of treating people as slaves inasmuch as YHWH
suggests in no uncertain terms that Israel not
treat fellow Israelites "with rigor" or 'as slaves'
Leviticus 25:46
and Moses, basically suggest that
you don't do that thing at all;
---
Deuteronomy 24:14
"You shall not oppress a hired servant who is
poor and needy, whether one of your brethren
or one of the aliens who is in your
land within your gates."
---
and, there was nothing preventing
an 'alien' in the land from
entering into Israel.
---
Exodus 12:48
"An alien living among you who wants to celebrate
YHWH's Passover must have all the males in his
household circumcised; then he may take part
like one born in the land. No uncircumcised
male may eat of it.
---
and so, if a 'slave' wanted to 'convert'
he was immediately no longer an alien,
and not to be treated as a 'slave'
by Israelites.
one of the last funny bits;
seeing that people of Israel were not
to enslave each other, but could purchase
people from the outlying 'nations'
'ideally', they could have purchased a people's
freedom inasmuch as they could have redeemed
people from foreign lands, brought them into
their homes, and made them accustomed to the
dignity offered up under the law, and when
that people -asked- to take and eat the Passover,
they could become full members in Israel.
but within YHWH's peculiar people,
personal slavery was -not- to be practiced.
and that same Being who says "love your neighbor"
also says "detestable" in reference to the
practices associated with shrine prostitution,
so, we -may- safely suggest that these practices
were -not- to be understood as "love"
and you only have these texts to go on.
and as far as this 'purchased redemption' is concerned,
that is what Jesus does for us.
not "ideally" but in actual practice.
not purchased with money,
but with Jesus' own
blood sweat and tears.
thank you Jesus.
-you- did what others -would- not.
ten billion unutterable thank yous, Jesus.
you -make- YHWH's Law come alive.
---
Leviticus 25:39-40
"'If one of your countrymen becomes poor
among you and sells himself to you, do not
make him work as a slave. He is to be
treated as a hired worker or a temporary
resident among you; he is to work for
you until the Year of Jubilee."
---
show me the coercion here.
when people sell themselves to other people,
or indenture themselves, this is not coercion.
much as if you signed a contract
to render a given service.
you -owe- that service, and so,
have ceded away a -portion- of
your free will but not all of it.
and, a person who works for someone else
of their own will is not a "slave" according
to you, and therefore, a person who indentures
-themself- to another is working for another
person of their own free will.
no coercion here.
therefore, you agree that these are -not- slaves.
now just try and keep that straight
in your head for two minutes.
---
Exodus 23:9
"Also you shall not oppress a stranger, for you know
the heart of a stranger, because you were strangers
in the land of Egypt.
---
this is a "commandment"
would you be able to agree that this says
not to oppress people who are strangers
among you like your were a stranger in Egypt?
and here YHWH is speaking to people who were
just removed from oppressive coercive toil in Egypt?
and it says;
"don't oppress strangers like
you were oppressed in Egypt"
and "oppress" connotes "coersion" of the
type that -you- define as "slavery"
so, you see here that YHWH does, in fact,
specifically command against coercive
oppression of the type that you
may consider 'slavery'
---
Leviticus 19:34
The stranger who dwells among you shall be to you
as one born among you, and you shall love him as
yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt:
I am YHWH your God.
Exodus 22:21
"You shall neither mistreat a stranger nor
oppress him, for you were strangers in
the land of Egypt.
---
but if coercion means "slavery"
and willingness means "servitude"
YHWH allows willing 'servitude' and
disallows coercive oppression.
YHWH commands against 'slavery'.
i don't need to use "Baal" as
institutionalized slavery to
demonstrate that you are wrong
to suggest that YHWH does not
command against oppressive,
coercive slavery.
but Baal -is- a 'slave master'
"Baal" -means- "Owner"
and when you come to understand that Baal
is instutionalized slavery, then you will
see even more clearly how YHWH condemns
that sort of thing.
so, keep it in the back of your mind.
---
Exodus 23:9
"Also you shall not oppress a stranger, for you know
the heart of a stranger, because you were strangers
in the land of Egypt.
Leviticus 19:34
The stranger who dwells among you shall be to you
as one born among you, and you shall love him as
yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt:
I am YHWH your God.
Exodus 22:21
"You shall neither mistreat a stranger nor
oppress him, for you were strangers in
the land of Egypt.
---
whether you regard "don't do this" as
"condemnation" is not relevant here,
simply that such a stricture is placed
against 'oppression' in the 'scriptures.
no, it tells you that when a person enters into
indenture of his own free will, he is not a
slave according to your own criterion
and that YHWH commands against oppressing even
strangers and so, the brand of coercive slavery
that you define -as- slavery would be denounced.
---
Leviticus 25:39-40
"'If one of your countrymen becomes poor
among you and sells himself to you, do not
make him work as a slave. He is to be
treated as a hired worker or a temporary
resident among you; he is to work for
you until the Year of Jubilee."
---
'servitude' is -not- 'slavery'.
and YHWH does, in fact, leave strictures
against oppressive coercion.
---
#Exodus 12:48
#"An alien living among you who wants to celebrate
#YHWH's Passover must have all the males in his
#household circumcised; then he may take part
#like one born in the land. No uncircumcised
#male may eat of it.
---
#and so, if a 'slave' wanted to 'convert'
#he was immediately no longer an alien,
#and not to be treated as a 'slave'
#by Israelites.
#one of the last funny bits;
#seeing that people of Israel were not
#to enslave each other, but could purchase
#people from the outlying 'nations'
#'ideally', they could have purchased a people's
#freedom inasmuch as they could have redeemed
#people from foreign lands, brought them into
#their homes, and made them accustomed to the
#dignity offered up under the law, and when
#that people -asked- to take and eat the Passover,
#they could become full members in Israel.
so, like, if you look -very- closely,
the Israelites -could- buy people from outlying nations
specifically -to- "redeem" them and seek their peace
and welfare inasmuch as Israel was to be a place of
exceeding blessings and the rest of the world was
nearly -in- a state of duress and perpetual
slaveries to the Baals and a cursed earth.
so, you've got to look very carefully where it says
that the Israeliite may purchase people from these
nations and take them as property that could be
passed on to their own children, -because-
after 3 to 10 generations,
these people -could- enter in to Israel proper
according to Exodus and eating the passover
and circumcising their males.
=now= ask yourself, which would be more "Godlike"?
would it be more "Godlike" to oppress these people
perpetually as slaves or, more "Godlike" to redeem them
-from- a cursed existence and grant them redemptive
release at the eating of the passover
in 3 to 10 generations?
and by the way, Boaz is in excess
of 10 generations from the Mosaic years.
and, as we see, Boaz takes Ruth,
the Moabitess to wife,
and not only redeems -her- but David and Jesus
are both descended -from- Ruth, the Moabitess.
so, -obviously, if King David is a Moabite blend
this cannot be ,,,well, you can make up the rest...
[notice the arrows <---]
you'll notice that in deuteronomy 23, the implication
that Israel could seek the peace and prosperity
of these outlying 'nations' but only that Moab
and the Ammonites were to be put off for a much
longer period than were the Egyptians themselves,
and...Edom, who is Esau.
so, basically, -by- the time of the 50 year Jubilee...
you'd be pretty close to the 3 generational decree
for redeeming edomites and egyptians and the decree
becomes to proclaim Liberty to =all= inhabitants
of the land -including- the people that were purchased
out of the nations as a redemp[tion -just- like
YHWH redeemed Israel from Egypt in the first place,
and so, my "ideally" statement earlier is not so very
far fetched and is actually, a pretty good look
behind the veil on Moses' face.
=Ideally= Israel could purchase people from the
outlying nations who were already under duress
and bring them home in to Israel and instruct
them in Torah andlead them to take the passover
and ...set them free in to Israel
thus being more like YHWH.
===
Leviticus 25:9-11
9 Then you shall cause the trumpet of the Jubilee
to sound on the tenth day of the seventh month; on
the Day of Atonement you shall make the trumpet to
sound throughout all your land. 10 And you shall
consecrate the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty
throughout all the land to =all= its inhabitants. <---
It shall be a Jubilee for you; and each of you
shall return to his possession, and each of you
shall return to his family. 11 That fiftieth year
shall be a Jubilee to you; in it you shall neither
sow nor reap what grows of its own accord, nor
gather the grapes of your untended vine.
<...>
44 And as for your male and female slaves whom
you may have—from the nations that are around you,
from them you may buy male and female slaves.
45 Moreover you may buy the children of the
strangers who dwell among you, and their families
who are with you, which they beget in your land;
and they shall become your property. 46 And you
may take them as an inheritance for your children
after you, to inherit them as a possession;
they shall be your permanent slaves.
===
Deuteronomy 23:7-9
7 “You shall not abhor an Edomite, for he is your brother.
You shall not abhor an Egyptian, because you were an alien
in his land. 8 The children of the third generation born <---
to them may enter the assembly of YHWH.
==
Deuteronomy 23
3 “An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter the assembly
of YHWH; even to the tenth generation none of his
descendants shall enter the assembly of YHWH for
a very long time, 4 because they did not meet you with
bread and water on the road when you came out of Egypt,
and because they hired against you Balaam the son of
Beor from Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse you.
5 Nevertheless YHWH your God would not listen to Balaam,
but YHWH your God turned the curse into a blessing
for you, because YHWH your God loves you.
6 You shall not seek their peace nor their
prosperity all your days for a very long time. <---
===
Ruth 4
5 Then Boaz said, “On the day you buy the field
from the hand of Naomi, you must also buy it from
Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of the dead, to
perpetuate the name of the dead
through his inheritance.”
===
bel;ieve it or not, it was almost could have been
a =privelege= to have an Israelite purchase you
from out of these nations who were under duress
and -not- being blessed by YHWH...
but, of course, Israel followed after the ways =of=
these outlying nations and forsook the covenant
of LIBERTY in YHWH.
so, ...Jesus comes, does his thing
and they all lived happily ever after...
not =quite=.... THE END
but .... it's underway...
Timothy Sutter
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=slave
Word History: The derivation of the word slave encapsulates
a bit of European history and explains why the two words
slaves and Slavs are so similar; they are, in fact,
historically identical. The word slave first appears
in English around 1290, spelled 'sclave.' The spelling
is based on Old French 'esclave' from Medieval Latin sclavus,
Slav, slave, first recorded around 800. Sclavus comes from
Byzantine Greek 'sklabos' (pronounced sklävs) Slav, which
appears around 580. Sklavos approximates the Slavs' own
name for themselves, the Slovnci, surviving in English
Slovene and Slovenian. The spelling of English slave,
closer to its original Slavic form, first appears in
English in 1538. Slavs became slaves around the beginning
of the ninth century when the Holy Roman Empire tried to
stabilize a German-Slav frontier. By the 12th century
stabilization had given way to wars of expansion and
extermination that did not end until the Poles crushed
the Teutonic Knights at Grunwald in 1410. ·As far as the
Slavs' own self-designation goes, its meaning is,
understandably, better than slave it comes from
the Indo-European root *kleu-, whose basic meaning
is "to hear" and occurs in many derivatives meaning "renown, fame."
The Slavs are thus "the famous people." Slavic names
ending in -slav incorporate the same word, such as
Czech Bohu-slav, "God's fame," Russian Msti-slav, "vengeful fame,"
and Polish Stani-slaw, "famous for withstanding (enemies)."
====
nothing at all here about not earning wages.
in fcat, '*kleu-' which could be construed as
a 'classical' definition' is not bad at all,
nor does it mean what you would like it to mean.
here's another bit of word history
as it concerns biblical usage;
===
slave
Jer. 2:14 (A.V.), but not there found in the original.
In Rev. 18:13 the word "slaves" is the rendering of
a Greek word meaning "bodies." The Hebrew and Greek
words for slave are usually rendered simply "servant,"
"bondman," or "bondservant." Slavery as it existed under
the Mosaic law has no modern parallel. That law did not
originate but only regulated the already existing custom
of slavery (Ex. 21:20, 21, 26, 27; Lev. 25:44-46; Josh. 9:6-27).
The gospel in its spirit and genius is hostile to slavery
in every form, which under its influence is gradually
disappearing from among men.
===
as far as earning a wage is concerned;
---
Leviticus 25:39-40
"'If one of your countrymen becomes poor
among you and sells himself to you, do not
make him work as a slave. He is to be
treated as a hired worker or a temporary
resident among you; he is to work for
you until the Year of Jubilee."
Exodus 23:9
"Also you shall not oppress an alien,
for you know the heart of an alien,
because you were aliens in
the land of Egypt.
---
---
Deuteronomy 24:14
"You shall not oppress a hired servant who is
poor and needy, whether one of your brethren
or one of the aliens who is in your
land within your gates."
---
a person may hire out his total services
and is -not- to be treated opressively
whether a brother or an 'alien'
===
Deuteronomy 15:12-14
"If your brother, a Hebrew man, or a Hebrew woman,
is sold to you and serves you six years, then in
the seventh year you shall let him go free from you.
And when you send him away free from you, you
shall not let him go away empty-handed; you
shall supply him liberally from your flock,
from your threshing floor, and from your winepress.
>From what YHWH has blessed you with,
you shall give to him.
===
a person may render his services to another
person for hire and -not- be made to serve
for hire for his entire life but is to be
sent off with his hands full after 6 years
in the seventh year.
not twenty years for a watch, but seven
years for a hands filled send off.
well, it is sort of a pension,
but not after twenty years.
this all speaks of hirelings and says expressly
not to treat them oppressively so, your contentions
that YHWH is responsible for and supportive of
the type of 'slavery' as you would
depict is not shown.
here' more of the text.
===
Ephesians 6:5-9
Bondservants, be obedient to those who are your masters
according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in
sincerity of heart, as to Christ; not with eyeservice,
as men-pleasers, but as bondservants of Christ, doing
the will of God from the heart, with goodwill doing
service, as to the Lord, and not to men, knowing that
whatever good anyone does, he will receive the same
from the Lord, whether he is a slave or free.
And you, masters, do the same things to them,
giving up threatening, knowing that your own Master
also is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him.
===
with all fear is an appropriate reverential
respect for the tasks at hand and not in dalliance.
and here's the collossians bit;
albeit, there is a carryover into the next chapter.
===
Colossians 3:22-25
Bondservants, obey in all things your masters
according to the flesh, not with eyeservice,
as men-pleasers, but in sincerity of heart,
fearing God. And whatever you do, do it heartily,
as to the Lord and not to men, knowing that
from the Lord you will receive the reward of
the inheritance; for you serve the Lord Christ.
But he who does wrong will be repaid for
what he has done, and there is no partiality.
Colossians 4:1
Masters, give your bondservants what is just and fair,
knowing that you also have a Master in heaven.
===
and like it or not, when a person works for
another person, he has less freedom than
the person for whom he works, this is fact
inasmuch often the worker must simply do
as he is told and cannot simply take it
upon himself to alter the way in which
he manages his duties.
all Paul says is that knowing this, offer
your services up willingly as if they were
being offered up to God.
master means 'boss' or 'landowner'
but YHWH 'owns' everything inasmuch
as YHWH created everything.
people are tenants.
and some of the tenants get carried away
with themselves and start acting like
they own the world.
etc.
look here;
===
Exodus 21:26-27
"If a man strikes the eye of his male or female servant,
and destroys it, he shall set them at liberty for the sake
of his eye. And if he knocks out the tooth of his male or
female servant, he shall set them at liberty for the
sake of his tooth.
===
so, the better translation of exodus 21:20 would be:
==
'if a man hits his servant or maid and they die,
that man must be punished, but if the servant lives,
that man owes the servant damages"
==
and remember this;
===
Deuteronomy 15:12-14
"If your brother, a Hebrew man, or a Hebrew woman,
is sold to you and serves you six years, then in
the seventh year you shall let him go free from you.
And when you send him away free from you, you
shall not let him go away empty-handed; you
shall supply him liberally from your flock,
from your threshing floor, and from your winepress.
>From what YHWH has blessed you with,
you shall give to him.
===
not just set at liberty,
but well taken care of as well.
-not at all-;
"just treat people like inanimate property,
and if you break or kill a man you feel you own,
there's no problem, just get another one"
===
Leviticus 22:29
And when you offer a sacrifice of thanksgiving
to YHWH, offer it of your own free will.
===
sounds like YHWH is encouraging people
to freely appreciate the blessings of God
and is not demanding forced tribute.
another strike against YHWH as slavedriver.
not that there ever was a question,
but some need to be shown.
first of all, let's cure you of your "presentism"
which is apparently some word being coined to denote
seeing the past through the filter of the present.
as far as biblical parlance is concerned;
if you look into the thing in greater depth
you'll likely discover that anyone who works
for another person would be termed a "servant"
and as such a "slave" according to how one
translates certain words.
so, basically, "slavery" is still condoned today
all over the planet as it need not represent
exclusively "chattle" ownership of human beings.
-albeit- it may be argued that anyone who works
for another person is for all practical purposes
solely indebted to that person.
as far as actual chattle domination is concerned,
and to make a long story short, you'll find that
this is a purely human institution and one that
YHWH detests as one of the abominable practices
of the nations and in fact, "Idolatry"
you'll find that the main God among the 'nations'
is this character called "Baal" and that this "Baal"
is an "owner" that is, a "Baal" is an "Owner"
without much trouble i can show you how YHWH
does -not- consider it good for Israel to
wander off and -worship- Baal.
where such -worship- comes with actual
practice and not just a lip service.
in fact, Baal is spoken of in not nice terms at all.
the only thing left for you to come to grips
with is that "Baalism" may be directly
associated with 'chattle domination'
that is, that "Baal" -is- "Slavery"
of the sort that -you- would probably object.
not -just- men and women -willingly-
working for other people, but unwillingly
being forced to work for other people.
and it only stands to reason that YHWH
who sees the cries of Israel while in
-bondage- to Egypt does not consider
_this_ -bondage- to be a 'good' thing.
-even- if some of -them- are perfectly
comfortable with it, and even speak of
returning to Egypt after having
been removed.
i'm not giving you a handwaving gesture.
there is an inherent bind between man and the land
in essence, man 'serves' the land
there are willing bindings between man and man,
men 'serve' other men
and there are unwilling binds.
men exploit other men in an attempt
to gain a false sort of freedom by robbery.
"Baal" represents the unwilling sort of bind
and is 'another God' which you shall not have.
so, when you suggest that such is not encoded
in the commandments, you need a bit more than
a superficial look to grasp that such is not the case.
there is much displeasure by YHWH over Israel
wandering off after -man's- institutionalized Slavery.
if you need further details,
i'll gladly accomodate you.
in short, YHWH does -not- condone chattle domination,
and, inasmuch as Baal -is- Slavery, -and- 'another god'
the very first commandment discredits this practice.
anyway, this is clear to me, whether or not some
may actually be able to take the bible and conform
it to -their- own selfish ends.
one of the funny things is that some people
may think are willingly working for other
people to serve their own ends, and not
even realize that they are in servitude.
and this sort of servitude does have
you at the discretion of the "Owner"
you do have your family ties
severed and relocated.
you're out their to serve the
Image of the Cultural Icon
this not so nebulous concept that hands you
a duty and takes away your slim perception
of personal identity.
do your job and live vicariously through the Image.
it's something people seem to enter into
willingly, and it isn't necessarily an
'evil' in and of itself, but you can't
call it "freedom" either.
and so, it isn't the good.
it's the olde, "you grab for that shiny
object, pick it up and it disappears in
your hands and doesn't bring you any
satisfaction" routine.
how -many- times do you
want to hear -that- 'mantra'?
so, don't flatter yourselves, servitude
to the Sacred Abominable Image has not
disappeared from the land.
even if you claim to love it.
and, the -love- of material gain is
the root of all sorts of bad behaviors.
----
Isaiah 55:1-2
"Ho! Everyone who thirsts, Come to the waters;
And you who have no money, Come, buy and eat.
Yes, come, buy wine and milk Without money
and without price. Why do you spend money
for what is not bread, And your wages for
what does not satisfy? Listen carefully
to Me, and eat what is good, And let
your soul delight itself in abundance.
----
does this require much commentary?
here's YHWH asking people why they
enslave themselves to useless things,
and then saying that they can get
what they really need for free, from God.
nobody expects you to drop everything,
and cease living in slavery, but you can't
really say that God is the driving
force behind these things;
and look here;
----
Zephaniah 1:10-12
"And there shall be on that day," says YHWH,
"The sound of a mournful cry from the Fish Gate,
A wailing from the Second Quarter, And a loud
crashing from the hills. Wail, you inhabitants
of Maktesh! For all the merchant people are
cut down; All those who handle money are cut off.
"And it shall come to pass at that time
That I will search Jerusalem with lamps,
And punish the men Who are settled in
complacency, Who say in their heart,
"YHWH will not do good, Nor will He do evil.'
----
-you- can't live without money,
but that stuff is just a token
of your enslavement.
----
Isaiah 52:2-4
Shake yourself from the dust, arise;
Sit down, O Jerusalem! Loose yourself
from the bonds of your neck,
O captive daughter of Zion!
For thus says YHWH:
"You have sold yourselves for nothing,
And you shall be redeemed without money."
For thus says YHWH GOD:
"My people went down at first
Into Egypt to dwell there;
Then the Assyrian oppressed
them without cause.
----
so anyway, there's definitely a flip side,
there's the purveyors and keepers of
the Icon who manipulate people into
enjoying their servitude,
and then there's the people who cede
their own identities to the Sacred
Iconography and take an imaginary
form of escapism 'home' with them.
and does God 'condone' this?
no, that's part of the whole bloody point.
part of that freedom vs. re-inslavement
bit you see in Paul's writings.
Free Indeed.
it isn't just pretty pious platitudes.
ThomMadura
>> Timothy Sutter wrote:
>
>>> see, God is already perfectly
>>> reflected in God's own Word.
>
>>> God is Breathing, eternally, God.
>
>
> ThomMadura wrote:
>
>> Al nice claims
>
>> WHen YOU can provide PROOF of what YOU are claiming - BY all means post
>> it here and alert the media
>
>> Until then - claiming that you know a word of god- is unsupported BY you
>> because you still have yet to prove the existence of a supernatural god
>> as well.
>
>
> aside from the implication that
> God has not appeared to people in
> a spectacular array of light and such,
None have been proven to have done so
CAN YOU PROVE any such thing- of course not.
OR you would have posted real proof
YOU have none
>
> when some say that God has not been
> 'proven' to exist, they mean they have
> no referrence to mechanical measuring
> devices which detect God;
Snip NONSENSE
No - we are NOT talking about any mechanical measuring devices
THAT is more idiocy from a theist
Things are not true just because YOU claim them to be-
YOUr statements rest on YOUR ability to provide proof of them
And when YOU claim that a god cannot be proven in any real terms - you
establish that YOU have NO knowledge that YOU can prove came from a god.
So - it is ALL human created nonsense until you can provide PROOF otherwise
Theists love to add layer after layer of nonsense to their claims -that
a god is a spirit for instance.
THAT is also a claim YOU cannot support - just one more piece of nonsense
WHen YOU claim a spiritual world - it is again something YOU fail to
support as true. And there is NO reason to believe it at all
ThomMadura
>> Timothy Sutter wrote:
>>> God acts according to God's own Will
>>> founded in that Love which human beings
>>> aspire to comprehend.
>
> ThomMadura wrote:
>
>> THAT depends on How you define the word "love"
>
>
> here's an interesting bit;
> notice, it's the "word of YHWH"
It is neither interesting nor valid
IT is a fairy tale written entirely by humans that YOU cannot prove has
any direct connection to any supernatural entity - because YOU cannot
establish such an entity exists.
IF you READ the bible - the god in the bible was an EVIL murderer
THAT you chose to call a murderer "love" is YOUR delusion
However - the killing of untold millions of babies - infants - and
children - who themselves were incapable of doing anything to deserve it
- is NOT LOVE.
And no matter what a mass murderer says - you cannot justify that one to
a real PARENT - who has REAL children. IT is not love in the least.
Timothy Sutter
> On 4/23/2011 9:42 AM, Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > God acts according to God's own Will
> > founded in that Love which human beings
> > aspire to comprehend.
>
> THAT depends on How you define the word "love"
revise your argument this way;
show exactly why such things were commanded
and then try drawing some conclusions as to
why you feel that these reasons are not
proper in your estimation.
not, 'it's often said'
anyway, look in to this aspect as well.
the children of Israel, on their way to
the land of promise passed thru edomites
and moabites and were told not to touch
them at all, because they were given
a land for themself.
so, why must they kill the -giants-
who lived in the promised land?
-one- reason was that these -giants-
were not even of the same species of man,
and YHWH had a very good reason to
ban their existance.
---
2 Samuel 21:20
Yet again there was war at Gath, where there
was a man of great stature, who had six fingers
on each hand and six toes on each foot,
twenty-four in number; and he also
was born to the giant.
---
that is, they were part human and
part decendants of the nephilim.
the nephilim being the offspring of
the union of the 'daughters of men'
and the 'sons of God'.
and what was funny is, these giants
were much much overwhelming figures
to the much smaller Israelites.
here, look at these;
-----
Genesis 6:4
There were giants on the earth in those days,
and also afterward, when the sons of God came
in to the daughters of men and they bore
children to them. Those were the mighty
men who were of old, men of renown.
Numbers 13:33
There we saw the giants Hebrew[nephilim]
(the descendants of Anak came from the giants);
and we were like grasshoppers in our own sight,
and so we were in their sight."
Deuteronomy 2:11
They were also regarded as giants,[rephaim]
like the Anakim, but the Moabites call
them Emim[terrors].
Deuteronomy 3:11
"For only Og king of Bashan remained of the
remnant of the giants[rephaim]. Indeed his
bedstead was an iron bedstead. (Is it not
in Rabbah of the people of Ammon?) Nine cubits
is its length and four cubits its width,
according to the standard cubit.
Joshua 12:4
The other king was Og king of Bashan and
his territory, who was of the remnant of
the giants, who dwelt at Ashtaroth and at Edrei,
Joshua 13:12
all the kingdom of Og in Bashan, who reigned
in Ashtaroth and Edrei, who remained of the
remnant of the giants; for Moses had
defeated and cast out these.
-----
um, now, is it at all clear that these creatures
who were humanoid in appearance and yet 'giants'
were not entirely 'son of man'
but were the remnant of the nephilim
who were the offspring of a tresspass?
now, does YHWH have the right
to utterly ban such a people
seeing as how they were
not supposed to happen?
and remember, Mesiah must pass thru man,
and no conflicting nephilim nature
may be found in Messiah.
the midianite problem was different
as i described in the other thread.
God did not drive out the Moabites
and the Edomites who were known to practice
these things but were given a land of their own.
---
Numbers 22:7
So the elders of Moab and the elders of Midian departed
with the diviner's fee in their hand, and they came to
Balaam and spoke to him the words of Balak.
---
----
Deuteronomy 2:9
Then YHWH said to me, "Do not harass Moab,
nor contend with them in battle, for I will not
give you any of their land as a possession, because
I have given Ar to the descendants of Lot as a possession."'
----
look, Moab practices divination and yet Moses
claims that YHWH told him not to harrass them.
therefore, this cannot be the exclusive reasoning.
there most certianly is such a mention inasmuch
as the people who were driven out -were- giants.
and not moabites and edomites.
i already cited those instances.
that's not relevant to who -was- driven out as
the Moabites who YHWH told to leave alone were
practicing some of these same detestable things
as described above and so, this could not
have been the sole reason.
that is, the Moabites who were along the way
to the promised land were not killed, and yet,
they were not living according to the law.
and so, if it was just the practices which are
contrary to the law, in and of themselves, that
was the dominant reasoning being the expulsions,
then YHWH would have instructed the Israelites
to kill the Moabites, but YHWH did no such thing.
> YHWH could have banned their existence before they
> came into existence, right?
evidently not, as these Principalites left their
assigned space and tresspassed in among God's
domain of man. see Jude.
---
Jude 1:6
And the angels who did not keep their proper domain,
but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting
chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day;
---
but you do see that there were
'giants' in the land
because they -tresspassed- and as such was not
an intended purpose of God but a criminal
act by those who tresspassed.
no logical sticking point there.
you can't suggest that YHWH placed
this desire to tresspass within them.
they took it upon themselves to tresspass,
and that's -why- it is a criminal tresspass.
the only people pressed out were these raphaim or giants.
and the Moabites were left alon because they were not giants.
well, if you'll look at why Noah found
favor aside from his being a nice guy,
---
Genesis 6:8-9
But Noah found grace in the eyes of YHWH.
This is the genealogy of Noah. Noah was
a just man, perfect in his generations.
Noah walked with God.
Genesis 9:12
And God said: "This is the sign of the covenant
which I make between Me and you, and every living
creature that is with you, for perpetual generations:
---
found grace is immediately
associated with his geneology.
same word "generations"
and is taken to mean that thing from which
Noah was generated and not just a group
of contemporaries.
just like Mary, Noah found grace and
was 'perfect in his generations'
i.e. no nephilim.
---
Luke 1:30
Then the angel said to her,
"Do not be afraid, Mary, for
you have found favor with God.
---
if you compare this with Noah, part of why
she found favor was that her generations
were perfect, like Noahs. and she had a
genealogy that went back to square one
thru accepted clean generations.
read the
Midianite statement in the other post.
here's some of that now;
----
speaking of the midianites;
and so, your only problem now is,
"isn't it terrible how YHWH orders Israel
to carry out this death sentence on
an entire people?"
you can't join the two issues
together, slavery and warfare.
-not- in this case.
not warfare -for- to get slaves.
but first, in relation to this particular issue;
---
Numbers 31:28-47:
---
the attack on the midianites was not ordered because
the midianites were some sort of natural enemy to
Israel because Moses himself had a midianite
wife who bore him a son named Gershom.
in fact, Moses was living with the
Midianites when he saw the burning bush.
if you look, there was a "plague" among the
people of Israel caused by the activities
of these so-called "midianites"
the famous "Baal-Peor" "Lord of the Gap" incident.
a "plague" that had become, apparently,
rampant among those people, and so, in
this case, YHWH ordered Moses to carry
out a 'retribution' against these people
because they had become intolerably unclean.
of note, is that those who were spared were
women who had not known a man intimately as
if to suggest that this "plague" may have
been sexually transmissable.
they were just a danger to
themselves and to the Israelites.
but they were -not- the objects
of slave conquests.
at that time, there was simply no possible
cure for this thing and it was the only possible
measure so as to ensure that this plague would
not render Israel entirely unuseful as
the vessel for the coming Messiah.
anyway, -after- Messiah came and did his thing,
people may be resurrected to newness of life anyway,
so, from YHWH's persepective, this cleansing had
to be done, and YHWH owns the life anyway.
there -was- no possible cure other than the ban.
YHWH had no contract with these people so as to
offer any remediation efforts, and this "plague"
was spreading to Israel, and presenting a mortal danger.
this basically separates out the aspect
of warfare to -get- slaves as is regarded
in your problem here.
and from YHWH's perspective, all souls are
YHWH's domain and so, the ordering of such
a ban or execution of judgement is
at YHWH's discretion.
no one has ever said that you
should take the law into
your own hands.
anyway, Jesus cures lepers so, all in good time.
but look;
---
Deuteronomy 23:17
No Israelite man or woman is
to become a shrine prostitute.
1 Kings 14:24
There were even male shrine prostitutes in the land;
the people engaged in all the detestable practices
of the nations YHWH had driven out before the Israelites.
1 Kings 15:12
He expelled the male shrine prostitutes from the
land and got rid of all the idols his fathers had made.
---
see how some of these "detestable"
religious practices were of a sexual nature
and that these sexual encounters had the
chance of spreading diseases amongst the people?
i mean, you would have many men coming into
a shrine where a few shrine prostitutes were found
and chances are, multiple encounters were the norm.
and so, the spread of disease was
not only probable but very likely.
not only was this "idolatry",
but unsafe and unclean.
this "shrine prostitution" thing
was -not- just some benevolent
alternative religious custom.
you can see now, with your micrscopes
and your hospital beds that sexually
transmissable diseases are ...well, rather deadly.
and here you have a situation where men
are encouraging each other to enter into
a shrine prostitute over and over again
and with multiple shared partnerings.
at the time, there was no other
alternative but to -ban- the people
doing this entirely.
just one last little bit,
just remember the midianites
were not enemies of Israel,
so, while one could wonder how
they'd have found 32000 women who
had not yet had sexual relations,
the midianites weren't the worst
of the worst of the human population
at that time, and may have only begun
dabbling in things like cult prostitution,
and so, these "plagues" had not completely
overtaken the midianites.
but people like, say "Amalek"
they even had sex with small children,
animals and each other and given the
propensity for cult shrine prostitution,
you have a situation where newborns have
syphilus, and a wide range of deleterious agents.
they were going to die anyway.
i mean, these were physically filthy people.
endemic pandemic epidemic ubiquidemic....
but Israel was the vessel for Messiah.
they had to remain clean so some clean
person like Mary -could- be found
to birth the Messiah.
-not- just "spiritually" but physically as well.
and shrine prostitution was
just a filthy filthy practice.
disease agents would be spread ***everywhere***
go back to your laboratories,
i welcome you to do so.
and pray to Jesus
in whom life resides.
thank God for Mary.
Timothy Sutter
but it seems to go against your claim
that these Sons of God could not bear
children with mankind.
unless you have some reckoning of these
Sons of God which makes them human beings,
but then, why do they produce giants as offspring?
the "nephilim" are not "nephesh"
and "nephesh" is what human beings are called.
often translated as "living soul"
Richard Alexander wrote:
> So, if Moses now meets descendents of these same sub-humans,
i never said 'sub-humans'
i said 'giants and nephilum and raphaim'
-you- say 'sub-human'
but would you say that to -them-"
inasmuch as they would look upon
you like a grasshopper or a cricket?
and yes, Moses meets up with them.
> that means that Noah's own family had to be mixed with them.
exactly, one of Noah's son's
wives was of nephilum ancestry.
she need not have exhibitted the entire
trait but she must have carried some of it.
and while it may be concluded that this
trait can be muffled, it seems to come
back strong as there were actual giants
in the land after the flood.
but Noah was seen as "clean' in -his- generation.
so, the only point of necessity is that
God knew this and that God, also, knew
that Mary was "clean" in here generation.
after Christ, it matters little.
so -i'm- not even remotely suggesting that
anyone despise someone whom they -think-
may be "raphaim"
such was only of priime importance
until Jesus was birthed.
and God say to that.
and yet, there are giants before the flood
and remnants of the giants after the flood
so they must have come from someone
married to Noah's children.
but also, remeber, God can work people like
a vat of silver and pull off some of the
dross and then more.
and also, don't pull up all the weeds because
you may end up pulling up all of the plants as well.
but the concern that Jesus not
have giant traits is finished.
-that- is a moribund issue.
well, the chroniclers say
decendants of the giants.
it descirbes a person who is very very tall
and the bed frame of a man who was gigantic
and notes the six fingers and six toes
numbering twenty four.
it actually says 'raphaim'
and these could be reckoned as
decedants of nephilim and human beings.
amounts to the suggesting that a tigon is
a member of both species of cats, lions and
tigers, and yet are neither lions or tigers.
look, it is said that God portioned the nations
of the sons of man according to the numbering
of the angelic host.
these are the so-called "principalities"
Daniel says the Prince of Persia
resisted Michael the Prince of Israel.
some of these princes 'left their estate'
and ventured into a tresspass and mated
with human beings.
no one said they were 'demonic' only that they
tresspassed, and as Jude says, they are now
'kept in chains against the Day.'
not all people living in "Canaan" the land were
decendants of Canaan, and so, giants living in
Canaan could be called "Canaanite" and not be
a plain old decendant of Canaan.
in fact, the 'hyksos' people who lived
in Canaan were called a "semitic" people,
and yet, they were called "Canaanites"
by the Egyptians.
it's simply a matter of the trait and
not the people in their entirety.
Ruth the Moabite, was not a giant nor
was she decended from the giants.
otherwise Mary would not have been
called "clean in her generation"
and also, which of the gospel's
genealogies do -you- attribute to Mary?
and which to Joseph?
they are not the same, as
you may very well know.
at any rate,
the giants who were populating
Canaan were not the innocents.
and if YHWH felt the need to press them out,
that is and was and remains YHWH's business.
the Principalities tresspassed.
and YHWH took aside a people for himself and said,
'-this- is My people, hands off'
but Jesus after being born, looked upon that
Canaanite woman with sympathy and understanding
as she had demonstrated the pure faith that was
dear to God and asked for crumbs which fall
from the table of the children.
-she- didn't trun a stiff neck to Jesus.
Timothy Sutter
spirits stole some of the peppermint
sticks and converted them into murder weapons.
God is, therefore, angered at
those spirits, and, must destroy
those altered peppermint sticks.
God has set aside a portion of peppermint
sticks which will not see an ignoble use,
maintaining their intended
purpose as a sweet effect.
God uses some of the peppermint sticks as
instruments of their own salvation, inasmuch
as more peppermint sticks would have been
stolen and remanufactured as murder weapons
and all trace of the orginally intended
peppermint sticks could have been wiped out.
these sticks witnessed, and were involved in,
the destruction of the altered peppermint
stick murder weapons.
these peppermint sticks came to
appreciate their own finer qualities,
and to revere and respect the Creator
of their kind as one who is stern yet loving.
in short, life is supposed to be sweet,
and, while God doesn't -owe- you anything,
it's important that you appreciate the blessings.
Timothy Sutter
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> >> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> >
> >>> see, God is already perfectly
> >>> reflected in God's own Word.
> >
> >>> God is Breathing, eternally, God.
> >
> >
> > ThomMadura wrote:
> >
> >> Al nice claims
> >
> >> WHen YOU can provide PROOF of what YOU are claiming - BY all means post
> >> it here and alert the media
> >
> >> Until then - claiming that you know a word of god- is unsupported BY you
> >> because you still have yet to prove the existence of a supernatural god
> >> as well.
> >
> >
> > aside from the implication that
> > God has not appeared to people in
> > a spectacular array of light and such,
ThomMadura wrote:
> None have been proven to have done so
> CAN YOU PROVE any such thing- of course not.
> OR you would have posted real proof
> YOU have none
using the drug industry as an example,
here's a sample of the 'scientific'
statements about the efficacy of
certain pharmaceutical products;
"take this drug, it may make you sick
and it may not work, but it works
for many people, ask your doctor"
the drug industry employs 'scientific'
methodologies, and yet they can make
no profoundly exact statement as to
the efficacy of all of their products.
these are considered truthful statements,
but not statements that will lead anyone
to believe that all drugs are always
100% effective, and therefore not
'proof' that such drugs are cures.
one can go into the literature, find a
description of a method to synthesize
"Paxatol"[fictitious example] a cancer
medication that is also a natural product
found in the tree bark of the yum-yum tree.
this synthesis is multistep
and provides very low yield.
now, if all you do is read the literature
you have description of someone else's
method to synthesize this chemical.
if you attempt the synthesis yourself,
you will still have to analyze the
compound after you get a product
-if- you get a product.
as i said, the compound
is also a natural product.
and so, the compound itself
grows in plants and can be
isolated and analyzed.
this analysis can provide a
standard for the identity
of the compound.
and this standard identification
can be placed in the literature.
and now, when you analyze your product,
you can compare it to the standards
found in the literature.
and then, when you consider you
have your product, you may begin
administering it to patients.
when it works on people, to do the
desired effect, your understanding
that that compound is therapeutic grows.
this same sort of argument
applies to our walk with Jesus.
we get the Word from the Body of Christ.
this Word -is- the product of the Divine Nature,
we then go about the task of synthesizing our
own natural product based on the Word as substrate
and 'the word' as conceptual literature.
we compare our experience of God to the
words of the paradigm structure found in
the literature, we apply literature
methodologies to our personal lives,
we grow in understanding and see
that it WORKS.
we attenuate our vision by continued
repetetive usage. our evidence
builds and grows.
we brush aside the talk of those
who refuse to follow proper and
time tested procedures in favor
of their own view that no such
working knowledge can be attained.
all the while, leaving the message
open for anyone to take and
put to good use.
disagreement among people who speak
-about- God is summed up best by
the brocolli example.
three people may be served broccoli
prepared in the very same manner by
the very same chef, and when questioned,
all three may provide differing decriptions
of that broccoli, and, based on these,
when questioned about the character of
the chef, they also, may all three
provide somewhat differing attribution.
all, without ever having spoken to
nor meeting with, the chef in person.
people can come to the considered opinion
that a God must exist and make comments
about the cooking without ever having
met the Creator personally.
multiplex opinions about a Being known
to exist based on study of surroundings
is perfectly reasonable.
and so, based solely on examination
of the personal veiwpoint of the Creation
and an assumption that a God is responsible
for this, coupled with an assumption that
this same Creator is responsible for
-everything- they see,
you will indeed, receive manifold
explanation of the Creator.
-but- these assorted descriptions do not
yield a comprehensive understanding of
that Creator who maintains an aloofness
to the material.
we differrentiate between knowing
-of- God and knowing God personally.
that is, one who knows -of- God may make
some false conclusions about the nature
of God based upon his own personal
understanding of his own surroundings.
all we claim is that such personal knowledge
of a personal Deity is not only possible, but
the only way to actually know God and not simply
know something -about- God or -about- what
the nature of the material universe says
about the nature of God.
a nature that is tainted by our own
presence which removes our ability
to maintain an untainted objectivity.
our presence in the world taints
the nature itself to an objective
understanding of that nature.
our own understanding of ourselves
is tainted by personal bias.
we can't just look at
ourselves and say,
"God is a liar a cheat a thief
and a murderer who does charitable
works when the mood strikes"
here's a little problem;
some have maintained that the conflicting
reports as to the characteristic attributes
of God draws all descriptions of
said God in to question.
that is, because there are variant descriptions
of God, -all- descriptions of God are of
a dubious nature.
much of this problem stems from intuitive human ideas
-about- God based mainly on personal circumstances
and vantage point on their surroundings, coupled
with some notion that a "God" is responsible for these.
but consider this for instance;
consider this as you would a picture being
a two dimensional representation of three
dimensions, only it's a three dimensional
representation of zero dimensions.
you prepare a plate of broccoli, and in
three different rooms, you serve this
broccoli to three different people.
albeit, they never see you, the preparer.
one person says they didn't like
it at all. one person says it was
wonderful and, another person says
it needed a little salt.
the broccoli was identically prepared
and served. the only difference was
in the people eating the broccoli.
and now, they are asked to assess the
character of you, the preparer of the
brocolli, based on their opinions
of the brocolli.
none have ever met you, the preparer,
and only have had a plate of your brocolli.
conflicting reports of your character
are received from people who have
never met -you- at all.
if we say that the preparer of the brocolli is
-like- God and the brocolli represents empirical
sense perceptions and impressions derived from
their own personality structure,
none of -those- people had an actual experience
with and of God, but based an intuitive portrait
of God from their impressions of the physical
reality surrounding them and their own self
assessments, and personality structure, coupled
with some assurance that a "God" was
responsible for these.
fine, and then you have people who feel
the need to tamper with -these- people's
understanding of the preparer by suggesting
that the brocolli simply prepared itself.
but then people come along and say
that they have actually spoken
with the preparer.
---
Romans 8:16
The Spirit Himself bears witness with
our spirit that we are children of God,
---
and tell that the preparer has
left a form of forwarding address.
---
Matthew 11:27
All things have been delivered to Me by My Father,
and no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does
anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one
to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.
Romans 10:9
that if you confess with your mouth the
Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that
God has raised Him from the dead,
you will be saved.
Romans 10:12-14
For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek,
for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call
upon Him. For "whoever calls on the name of YHWH "[Joel 2:32]"
shall be saved."
How then shall they call on Him in whom they have
not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of
whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear
without a preacher?
---
so, you basically have to hear that you
should call upon YHWH thru Jesus, who is
your Savior, and Jesus, your Savior, will
send witness to your spirit that you
are a child of God.
["Jesus" means "YHWH Saves"]
and -then- it's possible that your
particular take on Christ can be infused
into an overall portrait of The Almighty.
and that's sort of like this;
there's a concept called "resonance structures"
which concerns that structure of molecules.
---
Ephesians 2:20-22
having been built on the foundation of
the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ
Himself being the chief cornerstone, in
whom the whole building, being fitted
together, grows into a holy temple in
the Lord, in whom you also are being
built together for a dwelling place
of God in the Spirit.
---
somewhat like the broccoli example;
several people may read the bible and
get variant reckonings depending
their understanding of the author.
that is, someone who may believe that a God exists
based on inspection of their worldly surroundings,
but has no personal relationship with God, will
approach reading the bible thru a filter of a
preconceived nature of God for the better or
the worse, see things in the bible which he
claims conflicts with his own ideas of what
a God -should- be like and begin to find
fault with the bible as a record of
divine revelation to man.
several examples, like one who takes an elixur
into his mouth, doesn't like the taste and then
spits it out, and says that the medicine has
no curative effect.
someone who does not believe that a God exists,
and has no personal experience of God will see
it in an entirely negative manner and will not
take the word into themself at all but only
inspect it from the outside.
sort of like looking at a bottle of
arthritus medication and wondering
why it has no positive effect.
and then there are those who
use and compare the literature
with the divine natural product
of the Holy Spirit and see
true understanding.
one point being, you cannot suggest that
God has no 'proof' or has not been 'proven'
to exist just because God doesn't seem to work
for all people, any more than the fact that
"Paxatol" may make some people sick should
prevent it from being administered
it to anyone at all.
some of us have proof in a very concrete
manner that God not only exists but
works among human beings.
take the body and blood of Christ into you.
this is real food and real drink and very effective.
if you don't know how, consult the literature.
Timothy Sutter
> >> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> >>> God acts according to God's own Will
> >>> founded in that Love which human beings
> >>> aspire to comprehend.
> > ThomMadura wrote:
> >> THAT depends on How you define the word "love"
> > here's an interesting bit;
> > notice, it's the "word of YHWH"
ThomMadura wrote:
> It is neither interesting nor valid
further citations after some comments
Timothy Sutter
BaaL and Astarte a "Baal" means essentially
to rule over and dominate, and Ashtaroth
means literally "star" and comes from this
root word "ashar" which basically means "riches"
the false idols of domination/subjugation
and glorified wealth.
-these- were "evils" in the sight of YHWH.
and YHWH suggested that these false "idols/gods"
be tossed completely from Israel's midst, but
Israel didn't do that, they habitually were
enslaved to these two.
now look at this;
---
Judges 4:4-5
Now Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth,
was judging Israel at that time. And she would
sit under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah
and Bethel in the mountains of Ephraim. And the
children of Israel came up to her for judgment.
---
this Deborah is the lawgiver
like Moses among the Israelites.
-that's- what a judge is.
one who decides cases and grievances
and administers justice. basically
like the president at that time.
and this in the days when women were barely
above the status of chattle/property in every
other nation on earth.
and Deborah is almost like
the president is in the USA.
so, don't maintain that YHWH sanctified
the "subjugation" of women or anyone
else for that matter.
this is exactly the reverse.
and, before anyone pops up and puffs out their chests
and claims this as some source of national "pride" that
they come from a "tradition" where women are treated
all nice and people are considered equals and stuff,
no, because this is exactly what
the Israelites did not do.
they did not drive these evils from their midst and
they still, to this very day, hold to these false idols
as if they were their true god and cast aside YHWH
as if YHWH, the True and Living God, was a
loathesome thing to be despised.
these 'evils' being this bit;
---
Judges 2:11-13
And the children of Israel did evil
in the sight of YHWH, and served Baalim:
And they forsook YHWH God of their fathers,
which brought them out of the land of Egypt,
and followed other gods, of the gods of the
people that were round about them, and bowed
themselves unto them, and provoked YHWH to anger.
And they forsook YHWH, and served Baal and Ashtaroth.
---
see. it's funny that when Israel did
"evil" in the sight of YHWH what they
were doing was following after the
_false_ "gods" of subjugation
and adoration of riches.
---
Judges 2:2-3
And ye shall make no league with the inhabitants
of this land; ye shall throw down their altars: but
ye have not obeyed my voice: why have ye done this?
Wherefore I also said, I will not drive them out
from before you; but they shall be as thorns in your
sides, and their gods shall be a snare unto you.
---
anyway, the long and short of this is that it is
_exactly_ -false- to accuse YHWH of being the one
who incites "subjugation" and "adoration of riches"
among the people when YHWH considered these
very things to be "evils"
YHWH was -never- the slave driver.
-that- my dear dear chums is a very -human-
evil lifted up to a level of worship
among -you- all.
and evils YHWH suggested that -you-
drive utterly from -your- own midst.
i have some more along these lines.
like Paul said;
"Their god is their belly"
and the funny thing is, 'belly'
is another name for BaaL.
enslaved to your own body...
etc.
> and also...
and also this, without drowning
the place in scripture quotes,
i just want to mention the camel
and the eye of a needle bit;
long story short;
first off, this young rich guy
walked up to Jesus and asked
him what he must do to have
eternal life.
and Jesus said, "you know the commands"
don't lie don't cheat don't steal
don't do murder blah ...blah...blah.
and the guy said;
"i've done all these what more must i do?"
and Jesus said;
"give it all away"
and the young rich guy walked
away sadfaced because Jesus
suggested he give all his
money away.
and Jesus said,
"it is more difficult for a
man of great riches to enter
in to the kingdom of heaven
than for a camel to pass thru
a very tight squeeze."
and his 'disciples' were
dumbfounded and said;
_Huh?_ then -who- _can_ be saved?
why were they dumbfounded?
because they were being taught
that wealth and riches was a
sign of favor by God.
which is not altogether false because
Abraham was promised great material
wealth as a blessing from God.
-but- the 'favored class' had stacked the deck.
and -they- could dictate just -who-
was 'favored by God'
and, of course, they could convince
you that if you didn't get blessed
with riches, that you were not favored
by God and that it was -your- fault
that harm illness and blight
should befall you.
and so, people became enslaved to
the dictates of this favored class.
a favored class who was worshipping
at the altar of baal and astarte
-while- in the Temple of YHWH.
but i'm sure i ran on before about
how baal and astarte represent an
enslavement to the existing conditions.
etc.etc.etc.
so, for one thing,
Jesus is not saying that having and
enjoying some milk and honey is evil,
but he is saying that when you go so far
as to convince yourself that -you- -invented-
gold and silver and oil and mint and cummin
and that -you- are the arbiter
of who sees finer days, you err.
and this error becomes so
impervious to dissolution,
that you find yourself so ensnared in the
absolute -fear- of losing what -you- have
convinced yourself is your -salvation- from
the cold cruel elements, that you simply
cannot set yourself free from what amounts
to a self imposed slavery where the
slavemaster -must- keep his foot on
the heads of his slaves.
and your 'good' deeds have the
rank stench of an oily rag.
and you die in your estrangement
from the Almighty, who alone
possesses Life.
among other things.
wealth is not the evil,
pretending that wealth makes you
God is a despicable enterprise.
God is not a paranoid fiend.
but the fear of losing your safety
net is one tremendous source of paranoia.
isn't it?
> and so, people became enslaved to
> the dictates of this favored class.
> a favored class who was worshipping
> at the altar of baal and astarte
> -while- in the Temple of YHWH.
and so, when you look in to it,
-this- is part of the enslavement
that Jesus' completed work set the
people free from.
-not- an enslavement to the law and
the evil dictates of a despotic _GOD_
but an enslavement to a favored class
of people who were using the Temple
and magisterial authority to basically
have their own way on top of people's backs.
they -used- a licentious form of 'indulgence'
to sell people the right to walk contrary to God,
and then found the people at fault when they walked
contrary to the dictates of that same favored class.
but thru Christ, -you- can and must work out
your -own- salvation in fear and trembling,
as there is no such payment to be made
outside of the payment Christ has
already accomplished.
etc.
> they -used- a licentious form of 'indulgence'
> to sell people the right to walk contrary to God,
> and then found the people at fault when they walked
> contrary to the dictates of that same favored class.
not that anyone anywhere can sit there and say;
"the gubberment made me beat my kids
and stab my neighbor in the back"
cuz that ain't gunna go over
with the big G O D anyway
if your teeth are set on edge
it is because -you- ate unripened
grapes and drank vinegar.
not like anybody had to twist your arms
so much to get you to eat that either.
the gubberment may get called
to a higher judgement and
reckoned insolvent,
but -you- still fall into a very deep grave
from which you will not find extraction.
with no fingers left to use for pointing.
> but thru Christ, -you- can and must work out
> your -own- salvation in fear and trembling,
> as there is no such payment to be made
> outside of the payment Christ has
> already accomplished.
> but -you- still fall into a very deep grave
> from which you will not find extraction.
> with no fingers left to use for pointing.
what'll -you- do if the grinch
steals christmas and you don't
get your special little toy?
have a hissy fit and throw rocks
from glass houses or sing your
little songs cuz you -really-
do feel all cozy on the inside?
somebody somewhere is bankin'
on you havin' a hissy fit.
cuz you're an empty shell and they'll
beat -you- over the head like a piñata
fulla Ananias' and Sapphira's hold-outs.
if you look here 1 Kings 22
you will see that Macaiah the prophet says
that YHWH placed a 'lying spirit' in
the prophets. The story makes it clear
that God is not lying, and the prophet Macaiah,
that is telling Ahab about his vision of God
and the angels, makes it clear that Ahab
won't come back alive.
the passage cited is Macaiah speaking.
enticing Ahab by telling him the truth.
and like it or not, God isn't lying.
Ahab -did- die and dogs licked up his blood,
just like God said. if Ahab had been sincere,
he'd have stuck with the sackcloth and ashes.
what we never see in any of those passages
is an actual 'lying spirit' sent by God and
only the insinuation of such by the prophet.
what we see is the prophet telling Ahab
he won't come back alive and Ahab
not coming back alive.
Timothy Sutter
> >> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> >>> God acts according to God's own Will
> >>> founded in that Love which human beings
> >>> aspire to comprehend.
> > ThomMadura wrote:
> >> THAT depends on How you define the word "love"
> > here's an interesting bit;
> > notice, it's the "word of YHWH"
ThomMadura wrote:
> It is neither interesting nor valid
further citations after some comments
Timothy Sutter
Sinai was a formal written contract
between God and a peculiar people.
this in itself is unique among
the world's "religious" practices.
never before was there such an actual
"bond" or "ligation" between God and man.
and this bonding came from the other side.
that is, _God_ initiated the Sinai Covenant
and the subsequent full redemption
of mankind thru Christ.
there is no other thing like it anywhere.
God asked for -and- provided the Lamb.
God initiated a covenant of circumcision with Abraham.
unique in all the world.
God explained the circumcision of the heart to Moses.
unique in all the world.
God gave the Holy Spirit to man thru Christ
sealing the covenant of Promise made to Abraham
which -is- a circumcision of the heart and the
vital inscription of God's own manner upon
man thru divine declaration and indwellimg.
taking the contract away from an 'outside looking in'
view of God from afar on tablets of stone and speaking
from behind a veil to an 'inside working out' view of God
inscribed in and on man's own psyche.
unique in all the world.
there is no other.
that Sinai contract seems so alien.
with this special reverence
for pure monogamous marriage.
what group of warlord figures would
suggest that a man take one wife
and never take another?
when historically amongst human beings,
women were considered the booty
of military conquest.
a slavedriver would never give anyone any days off.
so, how can anyone suggest that YHWH
is an ancient warlord archetype when
he institutes some hairbrained idea
like pure monogamous marriage,
and days off from toil?
what slavedriver, or plain old human being,
for that matter, would mandate interest free
loans for and between members of the society?
why only ask 10 measely percent
of any increase as a tax?
[not that the tithe was a tax]
only 99.94% of the population that found
itself affiliated with this contract
rejected it outright and never lived it.
what human being -would- invent such a standard?
only to watch that thing which is the sole
identifying signature of the population
be dashed bashed and discreditted
over and over again?
mandatory rest days, from a warlord figure?
monogamous marriage, from a warlord?
interest free loans from a warlord?
not likely.
and there's other stuff like that.
---
Leviticus 25:35-38
"If one of your brethren becomes poor, and falls
into poverty among you, then you shall help him,
like a stranger or a sojourner, that he may live
with you. Take no usury or interest from him;
but fear your God, that your brother may live with you.
You shall not lend him your money for usury, nor
lend him your food at a profit. I am YHWH your God,
who brought you out of the land of Egypt,
to give you the land of Canaan and to be your God.
Exodus 22:25-26
"If you lend money to one of my people among you
who is needy, do not be like a moneylender; charge
him no interest. If you take your neighbor's cloak
as a pledge, return it to him by sunset,
---
at any rate, no offense, but have you looked
at the interest rates associated with
credit card debt?
it's usurious.
not that anyone's asking -you- people
to offer up loans free of interest,
but usury still ain't too kosher.
yeah, and human beings invented this sort of standard.
power mad control freak human beings
invented -this- sort of standard?
and all this talk about "love" what
warlord figure would institute
crazy things like that?
yeah right, Alexander conquers the plain
and then looks around and starts rambling
on about "love"
that dude drank himself into an early grave
after he had no more battles to fight and
his generals divided up the conquest.
-that's- the more likely human application.
but even 'greece' is tainted by
the existance of Israel as a people.
and who knows who the Dorians
who invaded greece from the North were?
scattered national Israel more than likely.
i mean, it's off that people should
villify YHWH as hyper-masculine and
super-patriarchal when there are these
very gentle statements about being
all nice and stuff.
Alexander turns into Mr. Rogers after he's finished.
not that fatherhood is such an ugly thing.
but Moses is never really looked
upon as some sort of warlord
figure anyway.
so, where they get that i don't know.
evidently becuz Saul replaced YHWH
as King of Israel and he was
a right bloody bastard.
but he was the best Israel had to offer at the time.
seems to me, you can't get
away with calling YHWH a monster.
you -can- get away with calling
a lot of human beings monsters.
but human beings still can't even come
close to living _UP_ to that standard
set down at Sinai.
so they alter that Law to fit themselves better.
why would human beings have to alter a law
they made themselves to fit themselves better?
why would they have to -erode- the impact to make
this Law -less- forceful if they were progressing
from a primitive infancy to a more mature adulthood?
no compute.
ThomMadura
IF you define "god" as that bastard in the bible - the answer is
YES - the god of the bible gave directions on how slaves are supposed to
obey their "masters". THAT the bible condones slavery is CLEAR
Anyone who would take OTHER statements out of context to try to get
around something that is clear in the bible - is simply trying to
justify things in his own mind - but cannot
>
> no, that's part of the whole bloody point.
THe whole BLOODY point is that the god of the bible was EVIL. HE did
condone slavery - genocide - infanticide - and many other things that
a person today would be executed for.
THANKFULLY - the god of the bible is a MYTH - a legend that cannot exist
as defined.
THE fairy tale of the bible is simply an evolution of prior religious
beliefs - exaggerated over time - into WHOPPERS of lies and nonsense.
THE bible contains SO Many contradictions that one can easily argue
against a quote from the bible - BY quoting the bible from another place.
And the hundreds of errors in the bible alone point to it as the MYTHs
of superstitious ancient people too. THe story of creation has SO many
errors in it that is is NOT even close to being a metaphor - because a
metaphor depends on similiarities - not direct opposites.
THERE was a time when the ruling class needed the threats of religion to
keep the uneducated masses in line. THey added to them over time - and
today religion is nothing more than an elaborate CON game - taking money
today - for something that they cannot provide any proof of after death.
However - the MISTAKE religions made is that they failed to consider
that there would be a time when people were EDUCATED and would ask
questions. THEY never realized that people would SEE the contradictions
in the bible - because they never expected a time when MOST people could
actually read it. SO they allowed CONFLICTING claims and things that
simply could NEVER be true into the belief.
Worse- those same ancients also failed to realize that eventually there
would be scientists WHO COULD prove the configuration of the planets and
the Universe is NOT what is claimed in religious scripture. Today - we
KNOW that the earth is NOT stationary in the sky - is Not unmovable -
the sun does NOT move over the earth - and the moon is not a producing
source of light like the sun. And that is just the beginning
THe historical record PROVES that the earth is far older than the claim
timeline of the bible. Forgetting radiometric dating -we KNOW that there
are over 40,000 annual layers in the polar ice caps that can be counted
directly. THAT proves that the bible timeline of the earth being 5771
years old is wrong. IT is a MYTH as well
The historical record also proves that at the supposed time of the great
worldwide flood - it DID NOT HAPPEN. THere are whole civilizations that
were unaffected by any such flood - it is ANOTHER myth.
Timothy Sutter
but, that 'big brother' erects a statue of
you and you have to smash it, if you can
is the long and short of it.
but, of course, inasmuch as
-you- are 'the government'
you may also be 'big brother' over yourselves.
a 'big brother
by the -people-
of the -people-
and
for the -people-'
so, when you look for big brother'
don't look too much futher than your own backyard.
and then tap your feets together and say;
"there's no place like home"
provided you can find it.
it may not be where you think it is.
where you hang your hat and where your heart is
may not be home.
==
Matthew 6:20-21
but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven,
where neither moth nor rust destroys and where
thieves do not break in and steal. For where
your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
==
etc.
one place where i think the king james
translation stumbles on to a good rendering
is where Paul says;
"their God is their belly"
==
Philippians 3:18-20 (King James Version)
(For many walk, of whom I have told you often,
and now tell you even weeping, that they are
the enemies of the cross of Christ:
Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly,
and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.)
For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also
we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ:
==
this is an old bit and just realize, i'm not
pointing my fingers at anyone in particular.
it's a sort of a human problem that oftentimes
recurs and needs to be addressed again.
"belly" is that slavedriver.
baal is belly
belly in an english word
that comes from baal.
the fact that it was used in middle english
to mean "stomach" is no small wonder.
it means "lord" and even "husband"
and it means belly and belly is a slavedriver.
that's what you -don't- want.
Baal is slavery and Baal is
the Canaanite god, and never
was Baal the God of Israel, YHWH.
it takes subtle forms and before
it turns to outright chattle domination.
among these, the over indulgence of human idolatry.
where you create the mad power trip in your midst.
Israel may have walked into adoration of
the Baalim and entered into the hands
of slaveries, but this was not of God.
this thing, Slavery, is a _Canaanite_ aberration.
obliterate it from your presence.
you have no Lords.
you must have only YHWH, your God.
now look, the "fallen" demons would like
you to believe that their slaveries
are the work of God.
because they were cast down to earth.
don't believe that lie and
don't pick up their slaveries.
the moment you begin to adore
the Baalim you lose your freedom.
no matter who you are, Canaanite or Israelite.
but slavery is a canaanite aberration.
just make sure that you get this stuff straight
and don't ever *ever* let anyone trick you into
believing that christians invented slavery and support it.
because slavery is one of the primary "abominable practices"
of the Canaanites that was to be purged utterly
from the midst of Israel.
it *is* a despicable practice and one that
the Canaanites practice/d among their -own- people.
if that sweet little Cannanite woman actually *does*
want to eat the crumbs of bread that fall on the floor,
that the dogs may have, fine, you may eat that, but
that slavery crap *ain't* coming into Israel proper with you.
and those of Israel that wallow in the filth of this
despicable set of practices will likewise
be purged from Israel on High.
and it *is* in your midst to this very day.
and don't you *ever* come at me telling
me how acceptible Baal was as an alternative deity.
and how we should all be more accepting
of the "diverse cultures" of the nations.
now that you have been told that Baal *is* slavery,
now tell me how accepting we should all be of
the despicable practices of these nations.
and *don't* try to palm it off on me as if *I* have
some sort of mending to make for this thing.
it ain't mine, never was mine, and *I* deplore and
abhor it -now- just as *my* people deplored it
and abhored it from jump.
in the vernacular, "take that shit up out my face"
and it *is* in your midst to this day.
you don't even have to look very
far for its descpicable influence.
now we all agree that this
thing is a despicable practice.
good fine, took you long enough.
and BAAL means slavery,
the word is synonymous
with slavery, it *means* slavery.
the patriarchs had wives called "ishshah"
but there's this other kind of wife called a "ba'al"
and it is the selfsame termionology, and she was
a servant, her "husband" was "lord and master"
but BAAL was a Canaanite god and the Baalim
were little Canaanite's on the mad power trip.
so, one last time,
don't you *ever* come up on me trying to foist
this despicable practice on me and don't you *ever*
try and make some sort of vain statements as to
how the Canaanites and their "god" was just another
suitable "culture" that mean old Ogre YHWH
arbitrarily wanted to wipe out.
cuz this ain't hardly even close
to the truth of the matter.
and much worse practices accompanied this thing.
let's just agree that the demons
had the Canaanites under their wings.
*but* none of them demons had the
ability to light a fire on
soaking wet wood.
but if you reckon yourself as a decendant
of the cannaaanites, throw *that* bullcrap
off your shoulder.
*but* the world has *you* to blame for
these descpicable practices and *not* YHWH.
and believe me, just as Elihu sat there and _listened_
to the bullcrap that those three "friends" of Job
spewed forth for so and so long,
*I* have sat and listened to the preeeposturous
attacks made of christianity and YHWH for
*way* *way* long enough.
and somewhere along the line,
a true reckoning will have
to take place.
but you will find that this Baal
thing is *not* mine and never was mine.
eat[expletive deleted]
Christians never did support nor defend slavery.
some christians accepted it as part
of *your* little world in which
-they- found themselves.
and suggested steadfastly that a "slave"
should not see himself as beneath his "master"
nor should a "master" see himself
as worthy of such a title.
said something to the effect;
a slave is God's free man,
and a master is God's slave.
which mattered little because
in God's eyes, -all were to be
contrite and humble.
the suggestion was, "you need not
run from your circumstances immediately"
"you can function in this world
*and* maintain your christian dignity.
I have sat here in this very spot and said time and
again that there is no such thing as a christian by
Imperial Edict nor a christian by birthright.
are you specifically clear on that as of yet?
well, now you should be entirely clear on this.
*so*, when you point out the behaviors and practices
of Imperial Edict and birthright "christians"
you lose a bit of credibility with *me* right off.
clear?
good.
and though there are nations who called themselves
"christian nations" and were "christian" by
Church of State and Imperial Edict,
NO ONE is *born* a christian, there is
no such thing as birthright christianity.
OK?
now, no one should ever make such
statements as were made before
in the future.
what you need to check in on is
exactly what Baalism was and is.
what are the warning signs?
Baalism is *not* a christian ideal.
never has been.
in fact, as has been made quite clear,
Baalism is a despicable abomination to God.
look, you can't just sit there and say;
a "baal" is a "lord"
and suspect that you've made a meaningful statement.
what is a lord?
"oh, a lord is a member of parliament."
no no no, not good enough.
a "lord" is a slavemaster.
now look, some say we are all God's slaves thru Christ.
hut this is the man who came washing the feet of his apostles,
a total act of contriteness. from God.
this Baalism thing is in error.
you are *not* to "lord it over" your brothers,
...."as the nations do"
for Christ said that he who would be the
greatest among you would be the
servant of the rest.
*not* seeking to be elevated to a position
of high honor and the eminent glad handing
of the rest.
this Baalism thing is an utter affront to God.
and this Baalism thing is like the guy who waved
a banner and blew a horn when he did a good
thing just for the public to see.
so he could get his ass kissed good and proper by men.
but Jesus said, "he already has his reward"
shun this thing.
one last thing;
the world didn't start when
*you* didn't get pudding for breakfast.
no, the world started a bit befoire that.
the world didn't start in 1948 and the world didn't
start 400 years ago or 500 years ago or a thousand
years ago or two thousand years ago.
no, the world started a bit earlier than that
and *you* are finding yourselves in a world
that *you* didn't entirely create.
and *you* are still playing on a lead
of those that don't have your
best interests in mind.
keeping you forever slaves in your mind
and you ain't goin' no where but down.
rotsa ruck.
ok, everybuddy knows, those dern seafarers from out
of the north went globetrotting a long time ago and
carried, among other things, some distorted version
of baal called "Wotan" to south america and central america.
"Wotan" being a variant of "Odin"
what troubles me some times
is when some of these folks
hold up Odin as if *he* is their "heritage"
when in fact Odin is some bastardized
version of Baal, who is *not* your heretage.
and then claim YHWH is *not* _their_ heritage
but the heritage of a people whom they
consider an enemy, when it fact,
YHWH *is* their heritage.
oh what a tangled web we weave
when at first we practice to deceive.
"come out of her, my people"
that Babylonian broad ain't no big mystery to *me*
Timothy Sutter
people are tenants.
etc.
and remember this;
-not at all-;
men 'serve' other men
and look here;
For thus says YHWH:
and does God 'condone' this?
no, that's part of the whole bloody point.
part of that freedom vs. re-inslavement
Timothy Sutter
does you see that?
YHWH says;
'proclaim liberty'
and YHWH says,
-therefore-
-and- therefore,
YHWH didn't change.
YHWH proclaims Liberty.
this is fact.
---
Leviticus 25:39-40
"'If one of your countrymen becomes poor
among you and sells himself to you, do not
make him work as a slave. He is to be
treated as a hired worker or a temporary
resident among you; he is to work for
you until the Year of Jubilee."
---
---
Deuteronomy 24:14
"You shall not oppress a hired servant who is
poor and needy, whether one of your brethren
or one of the aliens who is in your
land within your gates."
---
and, there was nothing preventing
thank you Jesus.
---
Leviticus 25:39-40
"'If one of your countrymen becomes poor
among you and sells himself to you, do not
make him work as a slave. He is to be
treated as a hired worker or a temporary
resident among you; he is to work for
you until the Year of Jubilee."
---
show me the coercion here.
when people sell themselves to other people,
or indenture themselves, this is not coercion.
much as if you signed a contract
to render a given service.
you -owe- that service, and so,
have ceded away a -portion- of
your free will but not all of it.
and, a person who works for someone else
of their own will is not a "slave" according
to you, and therefore, a person who indentures
-themself- to another is working for another
person of their own free will.
no coercion here.
therefore, you agree that these are -not- slaves.
now just try and keep that straight
in your head for two minutes.
---
Exodus 23:9
"Also you shall not oppress a stranger, for you know
the heart of a stranger, because you were strangers
in the land of Egypt.
---
this is a "commandment"
would you be able to agree that this says
not to oppress people who are strangers
among you like your were a stranger in Egypt?
and here YHWH is speaking to people who were
just removed from oppressive coercive toil in Egypt?
and it says;
"don't oppress strangers like
you were oppressed in Egypt"
and "oppress" connotes "coersion" of the
type that -you- define as "slavery"
so, you see here that YHWH does, in fact,
specifically command against coercive
oppression of the type that you
may consider 'slavery'
---
Leviticus 19:34
The stranger who dwells among you shall be to you
as one born among you, and you shall love him as
yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt:
I am YHWH your God.
Exodus 22:21
"You shall neither mistreat a stranger nor
oppress him, for you were strangers in
the land of Egypt.
---
but if coercion means "slavery"
and willingness means "servitude"
YHWH allows willing 'servitude' and
disallows coercive oppression.
YHWH commands against 'slavery'.
i don't need to use "Baal" as
institutionalized slavery to
demonstrate that you are wrong
to suggest that YHWH does not
command against oppressive,
coercive slavery.
but Baal -is- a 'slave master'
"Baal" -means- "Owner"
and when you come to understand that Baal
is instutionalized slavery, then you will
see even more clearly how YHWH condemns
that sort of thing.
so, keep it in the back of your mind.
---
Exodus 23:9
"Also you shall not oppress a stranger, for you know
the heart of a stranger, because you were strangers
in the land of Egypt.
Leviticus 19:34
The stranger who dwells among you shall be to you
as one born among you, and you shall love him as
yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt:
I am YHWH your God.
Exodus 22:21
"You shall neither mistreat a stranger nor
oppress him, for you were strangers in
the land of Egypt.
---
whether you regard "don't do this" as
"condemnation" is not relevant here,
simply that such a stricture is placed
against 'oppression' in the 'scriptures.
no, it tells you that when a person enters into
indenture of his own free will, he is not a
slave according to your own criterion
and that YHWH commands against oppressing even
strangers and so, the brand of coercive slavery
that you define -as- slavery would be denounced.
---
Leviticus 25:39-40
"'If one of your countrymen becomes poor
among you and sells himself to you, do not
make him work as a slave. He is to be
treated as a hired worker or a temporary
resident among you; he is to work for
you until the Year of Jubilee."
ThomMadura
> ThomMadura wrote:
>
>> On 4/23/2011 9:42 AM, Timothy Sutter wrote:
>>> God acts according to God's own Will
>>> founded in that Love which human beings
>>> aspire to comprehend.
>>
>> THAT depends on How you define the word "love"
>
>
> revise your argument this way;
>
> show exactly why such things were commanded
\Since I do not accept that there was a commander to do it (ie a god)
and YOU have NOT proven one exists - the rest is nonsense
> and then try drawing some conclusions as to
> why you feel that these reasons are not
> proper in your estimation.
>
> not, 'it's often said'
Since I never used that Phrase _ I do not have to address it.
And I automatically ignore any quotes of the fairy tale book of the
bible- and other so called scripture
THEY are a compilation of YOUR religious MYTHS and LEGENDS
IE they are FAIRY TALES
Fairy TALES do not prove anything
ANd so - try again
THIS time - use real facts that YOU can prove
Adam and eve are a fairy tale
SO is Noah and the Great flood
Timothy Sutter
the dictates of a forced hand.
you were created
to walk in a manner befitting
the children of God, of your
own volition.
you were created to be a
stone in the Temple of God.
not speculating from a great distance.
baby sitters crutches and braces
are -not- the dictator. these things
are to assist you in walking in a
manner befitting your potential
until time when you are able to
walk in such a manner without
such assistance.
you really end up in a whirlwind.
you have this place in you where you like
being told what to do, you take comfort
in being shown the way and led by the hand,
but you don't like being forced,
because this is unpleasant to you.
so, you have the existing conditions,
you and your surroundings, which are
really forcing your hand and dictating
policy to you,
but you don't _recognize_ -that-
as a "burdensome overlord"
you take on 'prima facia' evidence that
the babby sitters, crutches and braces
are the "burdensome overlord."
...i like 'prima facia' it means
'at first glance,'.. thought i'd like
to fit it into a sentence...
but see, it's the crutches and
baby sitters that will support
you until you can walk amidst the
"burdensome overlord" and not have
your unique identity crushed
in to the dust.
you -think-, that if you can only walk
'freely' as the existing conditions
would have you walk, that you will
be 'free' and unencumbered by
a 'burdensome overlord.'
little realizing that it is the
existing conditions that -becomes-
the 'burdensome overlord.'
you -think- that the baby sitter and
the crutches are burdensome to you
and restrictive to your 'freedom'
little realizing that you -need-
them to free you up from the whimsical
dictates of the existing conditions.
all we say is that before Christ,
this clarity of vision is confused by
your mistrust and disbelief of anything
that seems to run contrary to your first
glance and subsequent pronouncement of
God and God's baby sitters and crutches
as the burdensome overlord,
and now, after Christ, you can see
more clearly who and what becomes the
burdensome overlord and more effectively
use the crutches as an assist without
these bringing you a great discomfort.
a discomfort you associate with
getting and or not getting
what you want.
where your 'wants' are manipulated
by the burdensome overlord, which
-are- the existing conditions.
of course, the creation is good,
in fact, the stuff itself is -not-
conscious, and so, one cannot attribute
an 'evilness' to the composition.
it's when you seem to choose to follow -its-
dictates that you will recognize how unforgiving
and merciless an unconscious blade of grass can be.
it doesn't care one little bit -why-
it's going to pull you into a potential energy well.
the gaping unquenchable jaws of the grave.
our olde friend sheol.
and look, plain and simple,
ONLY God has the ability to memorialize
your temporal existance.
-you- will not lift your self out of the grave.
you -can- die.
you -will- die.
if there be any hope for your continuance,
it lies in the hands of God and none other.
and Christ is our mediation
thru the veil of the flesh.
cuz guess what?
that is why you are created.
to Live
in God with God and as God.
all the cupcakes in the world don't
add up to the dust beneath one fingernail.
not even close.
which is all part of the punchline;
cuz like, most of us die with
a zero balance in our account
with the Almighty.
perhaps even in debt.
so, what exactly is there to perpetuate?
an anihilated nothingness?
which is redundant, but
just plain nowhere,.. man.
and even those of us who would
lay claim to -some- positive
balance with God,
-our- -only- hope -remains- in God.
in Christ and the Power
of his resurrection.
that is -our- hope for those
who have -any- hope at all.
for those whose treasures are
the meaningless baubles which
excite the temporal man,
we go trite and say;
that didn't purchase the breath
it takes to tally its value.
no, there's nothing wrong with nice things,
just imagine you spent your entire
life perfecting a pair of wings
to glide from housetop to housetop
and felt you had them down pat,
and then a great big jet flies
past you and you sit there, stunned,
"wow, my whole life's work doesn't
even remotely compare to that thing."
well, just consider that your potential
Spirit Man is like an intergalactic Starship
and you're up there piddling
with your crop duster.
and you -think- your crop duster
is the measure of all things.
see what i mean?
and then some quick witted
smart aleck might pipe up and say;
"well, the crop duster is best suited
for -its- task while the Starship may
be better suited for some other task."
sure, but certainly, first, the crop
duster is -not- the measure of all things,
before you get all stranged
out on spaceships, you can't
string a plumb line across God.
that wuz just an example.
and whose task?
and then you may also consider
that showing yourself faithful
in a very small thing leads to
be trusted as faithful in
larger things.
and you can see how your stewardship
of your own body is -important-,
albeit, not the measure of all things.
and you are the 'God' of your own body
while God creates that new person in
-you- that is the Image of God.
you discipline the flesh as God
leads you in to the discipline
of your spirit.
and, with some diligence,
you make -those- two as one.
and so, you don't present
a conflicted image to God,
yourself or the world.
and then you can say
you've learned something.
and so, you can learn things,
by direct example in the flesh,
that -are- 'spiritual virtues'
and of significant value for
your embryonic Spirit Man
planted within you.
and you're still just beginning
to scratch the surface.
and this 'learning' is not just that
you claim to know these things, but
that you do these things in
actual practice.
Timothy Sutter
Timothy Sutter
comes -from- God -to- man
is a personal witness by God.
within limits so as to
encourage personal growth.
so, the primary approach will have to be
that someone tells you that God is there.
but we maintain that -this- knowledge
can -only- come from God and so, when
-we- tell you that God is there, we are
passing a torch and not inventing the Fire.
we simply say that Christ
is the original messenger.
Christ spoke to the mind
of the first human being
and has spoken again, at times,
foretelling a manifestation
in the flesh.
Christ appeared among men
-and- the Angels -saw- him.
Christ decended into the lower regions,
took on the flesh, and spilled blood
towards the _redemption_ of all flesh.
Christ returned to the Glory of God
and sends us the Faithful Witness
thru the Word of God spoken
among mankind.
so, when Christ tells you,
-by whatever means-, that
God is there and bears you
no specific grudge, believe it.
the alternative will be you paying
every penny on your account, and
failing miserably.
forever in debt to the existing conditions.
you will see the unfiltered
reality of God in your life.
Live
this Fire will purify.
in case you hadn't figured;
"Christ" is also, 'just a word'
and for all practical purposes,
"Christ" -is- God. "Spirit of Christ"
is a, somewhat, redundant terminology.
the "anointing" -is- the Faithful
Witness of God's own Presence.
God even knows God thru this sort
of Faithful assurance that God Is.
whereas Moses and David were "anointed"
and therefore "Christs" and the prophets
were visited by The Word of God, these were,
for the most part, singular events.
is was "The Spirit of Christ"
who ministered thru these people.
YHWH -is- "The Spirit of Christ"
not just an equality, but an identity.
as for the man referred to as Jesus Christ;
this guy is a little different from
Moses and David and the prophets.
this guy was formulated in the womb
of Mary by The Spirit of Christ.
but see look, remember i showed you these;
DNA is the template for its replication
the "Central dogma of genetics"
that is, it takes DNA to reproduce DNA
and
DNA --> RNA --> Protein
the "Central Dogma of moleclar biology"
and then said that God formed the Templates
for the production of the originating DNA
and brought the chemicals into alignment
around God's templates.
so, it isn't a remarkable thing to explain
that God can provide a template "in situ"
which will produce a child having a human
mother and God as father.
realizing that the originating templates
for DNA arise from God in the first place.
the child is still a human being,
and no more or less a child of God
than "Adam", the first 'man', but
born by a woman under the law, but
not born of 'man' under the damning
effect of "Adam's" mortal discovery,
resulting in a mortallity which was
encoded in his physical being but
only triggered when Adam walked astray.
Mary's generation was clean top to bottom
and God provided a template through
Declaration of the Word of God upon Mary.
after all, the DNA algorithm -is-
a coded set of instructions, or
a "Word", that can be spelled out
using chemical letters.
the algorithm can exist as a pure
statement in the mind of God and
be born in the material by Fiat.
having said that, we distinguish Jesus
from all others born of "Adam" but we
do not distinguish Jesus from
the human race.
Jesus' mortallity was not triggered.
see, Jesus didn't have to die, but
he accepted -your- necessary death
in -your- stead.
a necessary death you
inherited from your
progenitors.
what Jesus could see and Adam would not see
was the Life of God being interminable freed
him from the fear of death provided he
maintained his attachment to God thru Faith.
Adam saw mortallity and fear.
Jesus saw Life thru Faith.
Adam was rejected from Life
Jesus was accepted in to Life
and like i said before;
Jesus' mental understanding so closely
paralleled and identified with YHWH
that the overlay of "The Spirit of Christ"
upon his identification with death and
resurrection resulted in a thunderous
applause came from "the other side"
that is, God thundered;
"*THIS* is -Me- in the material world"
"*THIS* is -My- offspring"
BEHOLD
alright now that -that- is said and done,
what about -you-
how now are -you- "like Christ"?
how now -can- you approach
and surpass Jesus Christ?
well, first things first,
-you- have a pile of rubble under
which you find yourself obstructed
to a full knowledge of Christ in you.
so, when Christ first impresses you,
you see clearly but the detritus of
Adam's mortal discovery and -your-
fear of death and subsequent enclosure
in a world of want competes for your
attention and when your eyes -would-
remain fixed on Christ, they look
back and you stumble.
and now, in fear and trembling,
you inch towards God, shedding the
dead works and avoiding obstacles
to your forward progress.
holding the seal of God in -your-
forehead -you- enter in to communion
and unity with God.
and then, it may be said,
that you are "like Christ"
and then you can enter in to
Life thru Christ where you were
born in to Death thru Adam.
i hope i didn't leave to much out.
# DNA is the template for its replication
# the "Central dogma of genetics"
# that is, it takes DNA to reproduce DNA and
# DNA --> RNA --> Protein
# the "Central Dogma of moleclar biology"
as an aside piece of background;
see, given these central dogmas, which were
gained by methodical observations, people have
been trying to invent ways to explain the
arising of life on earth under the darkness
of the "NO God" axiom.
that is, seeing that DNA is the
template for it's own replication
and that the string of events
is always observed to proceed
DNA --> RNA --> protein
and -never-
amino acids --> protein --> RNA --> DNA --> RNA --> protein
one must resort to unobservable conjectures
and speculation to account for the very
fact that self reproducing genetic libraries
exist on earth at all given the "No God" axiom.
among these the so-called "space seed"
and "RNA world" 'hypotheses'.
but, see, in light of the consequences
surrounding genesis from singularity and
the absolute necessity for a Creative Being
to initiate genesis from singularity,
the "No God" axiom fails as -not-
"self evident" and, in fact, false
and wholly invalid.
and so, "space seed" and "RNA world"
conjectures are unwarranted and unnecessary
and one may construct a -simple- dogma
God --> DNA --> RNA --> protein
which neatly accounts for the existance of
genetic libraries on earth without resort
to onobservable conjectures but simply
the unavoidable evidence of the finger
of creation.
a finger we've already demonstrated
as present in genesis from singularity.
just another evidence of the existance of God.
and so, there's no -real- 'excuse'.
and like i said,
Adam is referred to as "son of God"
-we- are "son of Adam" or "son of Man"
so now, Jesus, by this peculiar birthing
by the Holy Spirit in Mary is again a man
called "son of God"
but is also, "son of man" by Mary.
and that's why he is special
for -us-, the children of Adam.
the "son" part refers to his humanity.
so, -how- has -this- "son" 'always existed'
whereas Adam was "formed of the dust?"
his template -is- The Word of God.
God declared Jesus in to Mary
YHWH Savior becomes "son of man"
The Word of God who has always
existed became flesh and dwelt
among mankind.
The Word of God who Is God.
The Word of God who Is
The Spirit of Christ
who Is YHWH
tasted -our- mortallity
and swallowed up Death in the
Indestructible Life of God.
The Great Fish who could not
lay hold of Jesus, vomitted
him out onto the shore.
Timothy Sutter
unity of the material realm with the Spirit
and proving the Wisdom of God to those
immortal created spirits who entered
in to the "sin consciousness" that is,
the diabolical wrestling match
of beauty and want.
God's complete entry into the material realm,
thru the veil of the flesh, was predestined.
the elevation of the human beings into
full unity with God, in the Spirit, was
intended from before the onset of
the material creation event.
think on this for a moment,
the material creation may have had one
intended purpose of pulling out the
"sin consciousness," _if_ such a thing
was present, from those among the
initial spiritual creation.
as in, the first created spirits,
could not fully comprehend God and so,
did not develop that covetous desire,
in want for God's Glory.
meaning, even to those in the spirit realm,
some aspect of God remains incomprehensible,
and beyond finding out, except by
a Revelation from God.
'they' did not, know what 'they' were not.
so, while 'they' may have been aware of
the Presence of God, 'they,' as yet, could
not fully comprehend the depth of
God's Being in Wisdom.
and this bit to help pinpoint where
the first "yes = no" statement arises
and births the "sin consciouness"
the Identity as "The Creator"
remained somewhat incomprehensible
to the first created being.
material genesis requires concious initiator
_THE Creator_
event sequence before Creation is timeless
Creator brings forth new beings in likeness to Creator
an expression of THE Creator's Love, by definition
new beings not responsible for being Created
_THE Creator_
is a unique, Divine, attribution
no other being may claim this attribution for self
to covet this attribution is to be found in want
a want that is not in likeness to Creator
a want that is not Truth
Created, material, human beings are birthed in material want
human beings must have Creator's presence to survive
human beings not created with knowledge of want
human beings discover knowledge of want
human beings now have knowledge of want
knowledge of want separates them from Creator
one creation created without want
births want in falsehood
one creation created in want
discovers a lack they need
never have experienced
Creator immerses in material want
Creator experiences no want of
Divine Presence and attribution.
Creator always in Likeness to Creator
the falsehood of want[covet] is dispelled in
want[material] by Creator who knows no lack.
with the advent of the material Creation
they could develop a jealous desire for
control of the excellant Creation.
and so, 'we,' the human beings, are part
and parcel of the Revelation of God's Wisdom
to those immortal, yet created spirits.
-and- to be Gifted with that unmerited entry
into the abode of Love in God in Christ.
a Gift of a Name, Superior to any held
by those immortal created spirits
a Name which offers up the entry
into a full unity with God
a Unity those created spirits could
only grasp at and never fully
comprehend in themselves.
those immortal spirits who birthed
their sin consciousness had abandoned
their Faith in favor of the Mad Power Trip.
while those among the immortal spirits who
remained Loyal to God, glimpsed God thru Faith,
and the Joyous event of the material Creation
did not turn their heads.
but even they, may not enter
into the full Unity of Christ.
unless and until 'we,' the human beings
accredit them with full equality.
that is, their destiny is turned
over to -our- merciful judgement.
such awesome responsibilty in the hands of clay jars.
such an awesome God to spill a Precious Life
onto the ground to Redeem these selfsame
jars made of clay.
the Wisdom of God, smashes
the adamantine grasp of
covetous desire.
the Wisdom of God steels
the fragility of the
material's fabric.
and more
Ephesians 2:5-7
...made us alive together with Christ
[..], and raised us up together,
and made us sit together
in the heavenly places
in Christ Jesus,...
you're already -home-.
seek the clarity of -that- vision.
and don't let your eyes block your view.
the Kingdom of Heaven is like a man
searching for Divine utterance, and
when he found the storehouse, he
became totally devoted to God.
The Kingdom of Heaven is like a God
who empties personal treasures in to
jars of clay, and then buys back
those jars of clay to be God's.
The Kingdom of Heaven is like
a Word from God conferring Divine
understanding on all who will hear.
and, you know, you didn't arise free of charge.
no, a great deal of effort and much resource
was expended to bring you in to the Light.
yeah, you're free, but you didn't come cheap.
don't squander your Gifts.
we are possessed by God.
here's a funny little thing to ponder;
so, like, there's God, right?
and then God causes all these
"new" spirit beings appear.
and now, there's a great many spirit beings.
and the 'new' spirit beings all look around
and there's a manifestation of God in Christ
right in there amongst them, and there's no
great big neon lights pointing at
the Christ as Creator.
as far as 'they' are concerned,
The Christ is just another
one of them.
and only The Christ, knows for certain,
that The Christ caused all these
'new' spirit beings to appear.
only The Christ, knows for certain,
that The Christ is the Creator
who IS The Living God.
and, when I make mention of
the spirit beings who "remained Loyal to God"
and "glimpsed God thru Faith"
it was they, who acknowledged YHWH
as The Christ, as Creator.
and foremost, it was Lucifer,
who held this esteem for himself.
or rather, -covetted- this esteem for himself.
and, some say, a full third of the
original spirit creation was swept away
into The Adversary's deception.
but YHWH holds the Key.
and, The Resurrection settles the score.
and now, we, who enter into The Life
provide a full presentation to "the fallen"
that YHWH is The Christ, is Creator.
and, a glimpse beyond Faith to The Loyal.
and in turn, The Loyal, are Gifted to Us.
as, The Christ ascended, and gave Gifts to mankind.
and still, we progress...
# God's intent for the human beings is twofold,
# unity of the material realm with the Spirit
renunciation of the material is not your aim.
no, if you've come to some acknowledgement
of this "Love" thing, and you agree with it
and your innermost will knows it's the Truth,
then, while you're standing around with
a few extra seconds on your hands and nothing
better to do, you have the opportunity
to prove this agreement and bring your
material being in line with the Will
of this "Love" thing that you claim
you now believe in and agree with.
don't just convince yourself that your material
being is barren and beyond reconciliation,
to the Will of this "Love," and wait for release.
what you probably don't want is to have your environs
so dictate a policy to your material being that that
material being dictates a distorted policy to your
innermost will who has come to agree that "Love"
is living and real and prosperous in growth, and
that distorted policy starves your innermost
will and does irreparable damage.
don't poison your child while it is yet in the womb.
a little light house work
you can keep that lamp right where it is
apparently
it's not personal effort that can
ever win you favors from God, but
the agreement.
that is, as you come to terms with
The Almighty, the shackles begin
to drop off all by themselves.
mind you, those shackles can be
a hindrance to personal effort.
and the alignment of private intent
with "Love" should enable a more
successful personal effort.
so, there you are, trying to walk successfully
towards God with your own personal millstone
tied to your back
heavy laden.
that millstone being opposed to your
inner will's agreement with "Love"
being conscious of, and mired in, shortfall.
but it's started to crumble because
you've come to Christ for Saving Graces.
you get a glimpse at forward progress.
you and Christ start hammering
away at the millstone.
if all goes well,
you gain strength as the millstone disappears.
no, the millstone didn't give you strength
agreement with Christ in
"Love" gave you strength.
agreement with Christ in "Love"
made the millstone disappear.
your strength made the millstone disappear.
a strength you didn't realize until you
began to hear God telling you you had it.
a millstone you gave yourself
that stood in the way of your
agreement with God.
God sees you without spot, in Christ.
Timothy Sutter
the material nature, but YHWH
can be every bit as strict and
harsh as an unforgiving
material nature.
as Love, YHWH is the only
True source of Mercy, but
in the demand for Justice
there is no wavering.
matter knows no forgiveness.
you can not reason with matter.
when you fall from a great height,
your bones will be crushed.
and without ever having fallen,
you know with a surety that
to walk off a high place,
you risk certain death,
and so, you refrain.
if you placed this much certainty
in the words of your God, you would
tread lightly about the serpent's tail.
but your God is more sure than
a nickel plated revolver, and
not one to be trifled with.
it seems harsh, but you forget where you are,
the material nature can not forgive,
it is not possible for the material nature
to forgive, forgiveness does not reside within
the material nature, mercy does not live there.
also, no injustice nor ill manner
reside within YHWH, but all manners
of YHWH are perfect towards Life.
in fact, a split weight is abhorent to YHWH.
you may not see your bones being crushed,
in an instant, under the weight of your
own unequal balances, your own merciless
detachment from Love, but you do gather
in the deadly stain and none can remedy.
you do see your lives being torn from you.
you do see your vital force ebbing away.
you walk in a manner in which YHWH can not
look upon nor take part, and thereby, you
evict Life from your premises.
you invite sickness and every
ill manner upon yourselves.
you do forsake that fountain of Living Waters
and you do, make attempts at fashioning
counterfeits which hold no water at all.
and Mercy does not dwell in your midst.
not even a token.
so, what hope is there?
same as ever,
your hope resides within
the very Mercy which is YHWH.
YHWH swallowed whole that harsh
and cruel reward that the human
race has amassed for itself.
the material nature has no mercy
and has no forgiveness, and as such
the entire human race may as well
be anihilate.
but YHWH, your Creator, your firmness,
your steady and unmovable anchor, took
the full brunt of an unforgiving nature
in a cup filled with blood, drank it down
to the dregs, and completed your destiny.
and in an act of untold kindness,
offers you Mercy.
accept this life.
so, you accept God's Mercy, so what?
first, recognize that this mercy is not
suggesting that you pursue the manner
that would lead to death while expecting
God to perpetuate your life from within
this miserable state.
this mercy is letting you see that
YHWH is Life and the source of all
things good, and then leading you
by the hand in to a fullness that
is beyond your ability to recognize
and realize for yourself.
God is not picking at every little detail
that distances you from God, and suggesting
that this separation can never be overcome.
yes, there is a distinction
you are not God but you may become like God.
so now, how do you seek this good for
yourself while simultaneously rooting
out your self centered want?
how do you seek to be like God without
remaining exactly like who you already are?
spiralling in to the abyss.
God will accomplish a thing for you,
and the only way you can fully appreciate
this is by you doing something for God.
the goal is that you lack nothing and
attain that full stature of God in you,
and the full stature of God is not a Being
who makes perpetual requests for favors but
One who perpetually seeks the Good for "the other"
you want to learn how
to dance on the head
of a pin.
and so, back to rudiments for a moment;
as you would see progression,
you would seem to get something
for something, something from God
in return for something from you,
but the something that you offer up to God
for that something in return from God, is
something that God gave you in the first
place, and further blessing will be
predicated upon your rightly accepting
and administering a previous blessing.
"well, i 'merited' some good thing
by virtue of my proper and useful
acceptance of some thing that i
could never have merited."
yeah, sure, fine.
you made a progression,
cock-a-doodle-do,
oops, now you slipped back under the water.
just remember, even when
you almost start to forget,
God is
and you do not proceed towards praise
from human beings, even yourself.
the way God praises you is by laying
another new unmerited blessing upon you
which draws you ever closer to God's
own personal identification.
God sees you in appreciation of God's
benevolence and mercy, in thanksgiving
and praise of God, and steps closer to you
with a furtherance of that understanding
of which you could never gain access by
your desire to find out.
this is your substance.
# this mercy is letting you see that
# YHWH is Life and the source of all
# things good, and then leading you
# by the hand in to a fullness that
# is beyond your ability to recognize
# and realize for yourself.
# God is not picking at every little detail
# that distances you from God, and suggesting
# that this separation can never be overcome.
now you get in to all these bits about
how God knows the heart and mind of the
human beings and you cannot know the
hearts and minds of each other.
human beings are not able to empathize
in a direct manner with each other.
you get this problem set up whereby
you only can know yourself and then
you only can use that measuring wand
to judge everyone else but even your
self knowledge tends towards an
incomplete understanding.
and situations like these arise;
you pick at shortfall in everyone else
that you fail to see in your own self.
obvious blindness.
no mercy
you imagine that everyone else has
the same shortfall or trouble that
you presently experience, and you let
yourself off the hook and even seek
to magnify that sense of shortfall
in other people so you can feel more
justified in letting yourself
off the hook.
and then, when that sense of your shortfall
is firmly implanted within other people, you
go back to judging them for carrying out a
thing which you consider to be a wrong in
everyone else except your own self.
selective vision; you see what
you want to see and not what
you don't want to see, and you
don't know what you want to see,
still resembles blindness.
no mercy
you damn yourself in shortfall and
believe that you are uniquely and
tragically flawed, essentially removing
all possibility of empathic understanding
of anyone else, because you have assigned
yourself as un-like anyone else in your
own special shortfall.
total internal reflection.
in this case, seems like
another form of blindness.
no mercy
there may be more such
situations but we'll
stop at these.
so, if these are working in some
manner within the lives of all
human beings, the overall effect
can be nothing but damaging.
it cannot, yet, even be relevant to suggest
that people treat other people the way
they would like to be treated themselves
when they are not even able to recognize
how they would like to be treated.
the fact, is, that you do, already,
treat other people in the very
manner that you treat your self.
and you have no mercy on yourselves,
until you do but you don't and you are
trapped in this quagmire where you can
show youself a false sense of mercy at
the cost of condemning other people
for your own special offense.
a quilting bee of patchwork justifications.
so, God -tells- you that such
a thing as mercy is possible.
and, at first, that's all you have to go on.
mercy exists.
long story short,
as God's cleanses your consciousness
of separatory shortfall, you can begin
to see other people in that same light.
now God is showing you mercy, and you
can add that to your idea that something
such as mercy may exist.
now you see that mercy does exist.
and with an increase in mercy,
...peace walks in as well.
real peace, not a bellicose cry for a
cessation of open hostilities so you
can go right back in to condemnation.
and like charity, which begins
in the household of God, the
apple of your peace can
feed a multitude.
walk in that.
mercy
Timothy Sutter
'the law' is filled with many physical things,
that is, there are many physical things
with associated laws or statutes.
Moses veiled his face like a woman,
because Moses' face shone like light
was pouring from it.
Paul suggests that 'the law'
is covered in a veil.
Paul refers to law about oxen
as if it refers to a human being.
the flesh is a veil
Paul says the 'flesh mind'
cannot comprehend 'the law'
'the law' talks about the flesh
and material things a lot.
Jesus says; "beware of leavening"
as if this refers to "teachings"
those around Jesus think he's talking
about bread until he tells them that
he means "teachings"
how is your image of God portrayed
by physical material things?
how do you know when you are honoring
or elevating some other thing as God?
if God is not concerned for oxen
as they tread out grain, but man
why is 'the law' concerned with modesty?
what does uncoverning nakedness
have to do with God?
does God have 'weakness?'
Paul says the 'weakness of God'
surpasses man's strength
---
1 Corinthians 1:25
Because the foolishness of God is
wiser than men, and the weakness
of God is stronger than men.
---
psalmist says God is 'clothed'
in strength and righteousness
---
Psalm 65:6
Who established the mountains by
strength, Being clothed with power;
---
see also[Psalm 93:1-2 Psalm 104:1-2]
what is God's 'weakness'?
-who- could rightly call it 'weakness'?
just entertaining ideas,
for a moment, let's consider
Justice and Mercy separately.
Justice seems hard and fast and
maybe even a 'strong' attribute,
unrelenting in nature.
while Mercy could be construed
as a, somewhat more docile, even
'weak' and relenting quality,
-if- such a thing could be
said of a quality of God.
but look here;
---
James 2:13
For judgment is without mercy to
the one who has shown no mercy.
Mercy triumphs over judgment.
---
it's sort of like Justice guards and
protects Mercy as -if- Mercy were an
underlying 'weak' attribute, but that
this Mercy is the quality which
demonstrates Love.
Justice demands that you walk in Love,
Mercy shows Love and forgives shortfall,
and the two,
Justice and Mercy,
are United in Christ.
so, basically, -we-, human beings, would
never be able to consider a more docile
attribute of God as a 'shortfall'
so, when, and -if- we were to use the
term "weak" with referrence to God,
it would only be with respect to
our understanding of Mercy as an
attribute that is able to relent
and give, whereas Perfect Justice
-would- result in the inability of
-any- thing, even God's perfect Creation,
from ever being able to stand up to the
exacting signature which -is-
The Love which -is- God,
and so, this Mercy,
is an attribute, hidden in God,
which enables the demonstration
of God's Love even in the face
of Perfect Justice.
Perfect Justice which demands
that Love not be broken.
Mercy clearly shows that
YHWH is God and there is
no other God.
Mercy and Justice
Mercy and Justice -must- both
operate to perpetuate Love.
without 'the other' neither
will stand on its own as Love.
and 'the law' is an embodiment of Love.
the 'veil' does not cover the words,
but human understanding is dulled by
the demands of the flesh.
for some, the Union of Mercy and Justice
in Jesus Christ's life, death, burial and
resurrection is a visual object lesson
that YHWH -is- God, and there can be
no other God.
# ---
# 1 Corinthians 1:25
# Because the foolishness of God is
# wiser than men, and the weakness
# of God is stronger than men.
# ---
# for a moment, let's consider
# Justice and Mercy separately.
and obviously, Justice and Mercy
are not in opposition to each other,
Justice and Mercy are complementary.
and, the design will accomplish that
which Justice demands, and that is,
that you walk in Love, and show mercy.
like, Justice marches you towards Love,
and if and when you fall down on your way,
Mercy lifts you back up and sets you on
your feet and encourages you to
press on towards Love.
and that is the expected outcome,
that you reach that Love where you
no longer conflict with Justice
in any manner.
and Mercy never disappears,
because Mercy is a fundamental
component of Love, as is Justice.
so, we only -speak- of
'them' in isolation.
in God, 'they' are Love.
Timothy Sutter
"anthropomorphize" God,
no, we 'deomorphize' human beings,
that is, we reckon that human beings
have characteristic -potentials- 'like'
God and that -these- are the traits
which are to be magnified.
so, if we suggest to you that God has form
this need not be considered as abstracting
an Image of God from humanity, and neither
will we be found demoting God to a lessened
image of the Creation and neither will we
be found relegating God exclusively to some
amorphous aetherial quality that simply
hangs on the air like a mist.
where God, may, in part, have all such
qualities and attributes, which, when
taken by themselves, would not be a
complete portrait of God.
that is, God may very well be said to have
form and fully 'resemble' -things- which
we can, in fact, see and hear and taste
and smell and touch.
and that God -can- and -does-
see and hear and taste and
smell and touch.
God is aware
God is aware if God
God is -aware- of all things
including that which is -not- God
God is not just some pipeline
of amenities in to which you
may tap, even if God -is- a
pipeline of amenities into
which you -must- tap.
just remember Jesus, and how he felt
a 'virtue'[dunamis] flow from him when
a woman who was beleaguered by a discharge
touched his garment. [Luke 8:43-48]
[a dunamis is a sort of ability capability
power influence type of thing that is
translated as 'virtue' in some instances]
in that instance, that woman used a
belief to tap in to a 'virtue' that was
operating thru Jesus, the man, but that
Jesus stopped and pursued her so as
to reckon the personal identification
of the source of that 'virtue'
she saw that she had been noticed and
came trembling to Jesus and he made
very certain that she knew exactly
what happened and how it happened.
and in certain respects, you may be able
to tap into God's 'virtues' but you can
be sure that God's Presence will not be
off in the distance oblivious to your existance.
and/or that you will be able to tap
into the Holy Spirit like Simon [Acts 8:9-25]
the sorcerer who wanted to buy it from
the apostles so as to use it in the
furtherance of his own ends.
point being, God may not necessarily
have to be the sole -directing- influence
of God's own 'virtues' in that, -you- have
access to that Faith which carries curative
emblems, but also, that you won't be able
to mock God by suggesting that God is impersonal.
---
Ezekiel 47:9
And it shall be that every living thing
that moves, wherever the rivers go, will
live. There will be a very great multitude
of fish, because these waters go there;
for they will be healed, and everything
will live wherever the river goes.
Isaiah 58:8
Then your light shall break forth like
the morning, Your healing shall spring
forth speedily, And your righteousness
shall go before you; The glory of YHWH
shall be your rear guard.
Psalm 67:1-3
God be merciful unto us, and bless us;
and cause his face to shine upon us; Selah.
That thy way may be known upon earth, thy
saving health among all nations. Let the
people praise thee, O God; let all
the people praise thee.
---
# just remember, we don't
# "anthropomorphize" God,
# no, we 'deomorphize' human beings,
# that is, we reckon that human beings
# have characteristic potentials 'like'
# God and that these are the traits
# which are to be magnified.
aside from the indwelling of
the Holy Spirit, one is not
a "christian" at all.
the indwelling -is- that substantial
Faith which is Christ's own Faith which
is given to human beings, and is not
simply some academic exercise nor
the product of man's own accomplishings.
the "charisms" are the
"gifts" of the Holy Spirit.
based on two things,
which are these...;
"Jesus ascended into the
heavenly places and gave
gifts to human beings"
and
[Jesus speaking]
"I will not leave you without comfort"
...one may examine themself and determine
whether they are, indeed, a "christian"
as i said, the charisms are the gifts,
and the gifts are given by Christ.
and the gifts provide the essential
knowledge of God which is comforting
so that you can be assured in your own
mind that God is present in your midst
and is actively concerned with your life.
alright, then there's the notion of
"evidence" and this evidence is twofold,
the 'ethereal' and the tangible and substantial.
it's funny, because the charisms play
a sort of intermediary role between
the intangible Comfort of the Holy Spirit
and the substantial fruit bearing
offspring of the Presence.
ok, so fine, here are a few of the manners
that human beings are born with naturally,
having inherited them directly from our
progenitors, 'Adam and Eve.'
and by the way, these things are at
enmity to God, and can be likened
as "fruit" of the 'sin consciousness'
and the 'self in want'
here's a few;
quarreling, jealousy, anger, selfishness,
slander, gossip, conceit, disorder,
fornication, impurity, licentiousness,
idolatry, drug abuse, enmity, strife,
dissension, party spirit, envy,
drunkenness, carousing and the like.
this sort of behavior and attitude
applies to all human beings living
aside of God's Presence, and as no
human being, aside from Jesus, is
born the first time from their mother
as also "begotten of God" we can say
that this applies to all human beings.
[right here is where the bits with the
diagrams about Adam and the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil some of those
related texts and the bits about Jesus
and YHWH would fit in case those questions
re-arise and it seems as if i haven't
addressed them here and now]
anyway;
two things: just saying to yourself,
"my conscience does not bother me about
them" and "oh, that's not me" won't
make them go away, but they do stand
in your way to a clear vision of God,
and so, -if- you -want- to draw nearer
to God and gain and maintain a clear
vision of God, these must decrease
while the following bits must increase,
and so, as we draw nearer to God and God
draws nearer to us, we replace that stuff
which doesn't profit, with attitudes and
actions that were God's intention for us
to walk in in the first place.
may take some time, so, the sooner
you get started, the better as the
more ingrained -that- stuff becomes,
the more difficult it wil be to clean
it away.
miracles happen, but you're likely to
carry around memories of the old man
and you may just give up because
things hurt, and so, if you get
on your way early you can use that
gungho youthful exuberance to get
yourself off to a flying start,
Christ willing and Christ is willing.
i may look at this little
detail, in more depth, later,
if i haven't already.
anyway;
the 'fruit' of the Spirit:
love, joy, peace, patience,
kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
gentleness, self-control;
against -these- behaviors and attitudes,
there is no law, and when it comes down
to it, as far as character traits are
concerned, -these- are by far the
Superior traits and to be desired.
those other attitudes -are- the easy
way out and lead you directly to ruin.
alright, so now we've taken up our cross
and put away that tired old man who was
born at enmity to God thru Adam, and
replaced him with a new creature in Christ.
now we can start to unwrap and make use
of some of the Presents that the Presence
has offered to me.
and here is a listing of gifts of the Spirit.
the utterance of wisdom,
the utterance of knowledge
faith by the same Spirit,
gifts of healing by the one Spirit,
working of miracles,
prophecy, speaking the truth
the ability to distinguish between spirits,
various kinds of tongues,
the interpretation of tongues.
and these are the charisms.
and they most certainly are an outward
substantial show of an inexplicable
supernatural inward affair.
trust in Christ to bring the good work
that Christ began to fruition, and
Christ will not let you down.
here's a few scrittures;
[yes, scrittures]
1 Corinthians 12:1-11
Galatians 5:13-26
1 Corinthians 2:12-14
Hebrews 2:4
ThomMadura
> note, it does not refer to these as "sub-human"
>
> but it seems to go against your claim
> that these Sons of God could not bear
> children with mankind.
THAT is because YOU do not understand the genetics of the Animal world -
and humans - nothing more
The christ - as claims - is a genetic impossibility.
REMEMBER -the claim is that a god came to earth and impregnated a HUMAN
girl - so OUR reality applies to that claim.
And it cannot be true.
A god and a human have to be two different species. Otherwise - an
incarnation would NOT have been necessary.
At this time - in your belief - YOU have three male gods. THe idea of
the trinity is nonsense - it is physically impossible for a SON to be
his own father.
Since there are NO female gods - yet one of the gods is claimed to be a
SON of the other god - then the reproduction cannot be sexual. IT must
be asexual. And that is NOT compatible with the reproduction type of
Humans. There would BE NO result at all.
Now - if we assume a god had sperm of his own - that still makes the
christ a genetic impossibility. A human male requires a HUMAN Y
chromosome - none exist in that scenario. THe result - if one were
possible - would be a female. AND - more important - when two different
species attempt to procreate - they do NOT produce a result EXACTLY like
one or the other - they produce an intermediate result - a MUTT - like
the MULE - which is neither a horse or a donkey. Again - it would not be
a human male
Now - if a god is NOT a human - then it cannot supply its OWN human
sperm. EVEN if it could magically whip up a batch - it still would not
be of his own being - so he would NOT be the father of the child - if a
child was possible.
Even if YOU could overcome all of this genetic impossibility - the
result is that the christ - in the mYTH - is not described as a human
being anyway. Humans do NOT have the power to raise a rotting corpse
from the grave - or turn water into wine. That would be the property of
a god - if one could exist. ANd that negates the entire savior story.
Still - the most stupid thing is that the claim of the religion is that
the god sent his son so that a third party (The romans) could kill him -
to prove his love of the jewish people - who were supposed to be his
chosen people.
Next time YOU want to prove your love to someone by allowing another
person to MURDER your son - tell us. OTHERWISE- that is an abhorrent
piece of nonsense.
Peter B.
wrote:
> On 4/23/2011 10:11 AM, Timothy Sutter wrote:
>>> Timothy Sutter wrote:
>>
>>>> see, God is already perfectly
>>>> reflected in God's own Word.
>>
>>>> God is Breathing, eternally, God.
>>
>>
>> ThomMadura wrote:
>>
>>> Al nice claims
>>
>>> WHen YOU can provide PROOF of what YOU are claiming - BY all means post
>>> it here and alert the media
>>
>>> Until then - claiming that you know a word of god- is unsupported BY you
>>> because you still have yet to prove the existence of a supernatural god
>>> as well.
>>
>>
>> aside from the implication that
>> God has not appeared to people in
>> a spectacular array of light and such,
>
> None have been proven to have done so
>
> CAN YOU PROVE any such thing- of course not.
> OR you would have posted real proof
>
> YOU have none
>
But he has, as witnessed by Saul, as witnessed by the entire Jewish nation
in the wilderness, as witnessed by many at the baptism of Jesus, as
witnessed by the disciples when Jesus ascended into the third heaven and so
on.
>>
>> when some say that God has not been
>> 'proven' to exist, they mean they have
>> no referrence to mechanical measuring
>> devices which detect God;
>
> Snip NONSENSE
>
> No - we are NOT talking about any mechanical measuring devices
>
> THAT is more idiocy from a theist
>
> Things are not true just because YOU claim them to be-
> YOUr statements rest on YOUR ability to provide proof of them
>
Of course he cannot prove them on his own. He can show the truth by the
established word of God, We can experience this as believers and you cannot
as a doubter.
Peter B.
wrote:
> On 4/23/2011 9:42 AM, Timothy Sutter wrote:
>> God acts according to God's own Will
>> founded in that Love which human beings
>> aspire to comprehend.
>
> THAT depends on How you define the word "love"
>
> THe god of the bible was a mass murderer - committed infanticide - and
> genocide - and even gave the directions on how to PROPERLY sell your
> daughter into slavery. HT god of the bible was hundreds of times more
> evil than Charles Manson - and those who would worship this scum are stupid.
>
> THE god of the bible - where numbers are mentioned - murdered over two
> million. He told his people to DASH the heads of the infants and
> children of the people they conquered and ENJOY doing it.
>
> He also murdered untold numbers of infants and babies - and children too
> young to be responsible in the Passover - and the great flood.
>
So which is it? You said the flood never existed, no you say it does?
> THe idea that murdering infants and children is "love" is simply a
> bastardization of the word.
>
> And anyone who would worship such a monster as "love" has no
> comprehension of what love is.
>
You don't know that, had it not been done you would be living in fear for
your life and even your daily existence. There is a high likelihood that
you never even would have existed and those that were would have been gang
raped. In every case the reasons were given, who is man to sit in judgment
of God?
Timothy Sutter
> > note, it does not refer to these as "sub-human"
> > but it seems to go against your claim
> > that these Sons of God could not bear
> > children with mankind.
ThomMadura wrote:
> The christ - as claims - is a genetic impossibility.
it is not said that YHWH had sexual relations with Mary.
God -declared- it and it was so,
the rest iof the stuff you say is mor of
your own misunderstandings of the thing itself.
==
Isaiah 7:16
For before the Child shall know to refuse
the evil and choose the good, the land that
you dread will be forsaken by both her kings.
==
Isaiah 7:16
For before the Child shall know to refuse
the evil and choose the good, the land that
you dread will be forsaken by both her kings.
Isaiah's children are long dead and buried
before both Israel and Judah become
defunct as nations.
Herod was not a King of Judah, he was
some other sort of instituted thing.
so, before Jesus knew how to refuse the evil
and choose the good, the land was forsaken
by both kings.
but not Isaiah's children.
so, Isaiah's children can not be that sign.
and, given that the Torah is precedent for usage,
'almah' is only used in Torah to denote
women who have not had sexual relations
with a man.
==
almah ----> elem ----> alam
young woman young man to hide
a young 'concealed' woman, therefore, unmarried.
and a married woman is never called an almah.
==
and if you'd like to look in to this "almah"
as "virgin" bit, go look into the story
of Jacob and Leah and Rachel.
[paraphrasing]
Jacob admires Rachel and calls her a pretty almah,
and three or four lines later, Rachel
is described as having never been with a man.
I have made[inserted notation] where
i place the hebrew word next to "virgin".
===
Genesis 24:15-16,43
And it came to pass, before he had done speaking,
that, behold, Rebekah came out, who was born to Bethuel,
son of Milcah, the wife of Nahor, Abraham's brother,
with her pitcher upon her shoulder. And the damsel
was very fair to look upon, a virgin[bethulah]***,
neither had any man known her: and she went
down to the well, and filled her pitcher, and came up.
43 Behold, I stand by the well of water; and it shall
come to pass, that when the virgin[almah]*** cometh forth
to draw water, and I say to her, Give me, I pray thee,
a little water of thy pitcher to drink;
===
here "almah": is used, and it is undoubtedly
speaking of a woman who has not known a man.
and there are only a few other
instances where this word is used,
and most of those, 5 or 6 speak of virgins who
accompany the king, but not specifically having
had sex with him.
because the word for concubine
is used in the same passages.
almah simply isn't used in Law for anything
where it does not speak specifically
of an unmarried woman.
and as you see above, Rachel is
described both as bethulah and almah.
quite simply, an "almah"[hebrew]
is an "unmarried woman"
in The Law, there is no
"marriage ceremony"
to speak of.
no ring bearers, no "i dos", just sex in bed
and the inspection of the bed for the
"the tokens of virginity"
id est, a hymen.
yes, in The Law, a woman is transformed
from an unmarried woman, to a "wife"
by the simple act of sexual intercourse.
to the point, an "almah" being an "unmarried woman"
makes her a "virgin" by the standard of The Law.
there is no such thing as a married almah,
and therefore, according to The Law, there is no
such thing as an almah who has had sexual intercourse.
so, "an almah shall be with child"
is *only* remarkable _because_ it says;
"a woman who has never had sexual
intercourse shall be with child"
as, it's not a remarkable thing for
a young married woman to be pregnant.
or, a young woman who has had sexual intercourse.
but, a young woman who has had sexual intercourse,
is no longer an almah, but one of the three words for "wife"
and Miriam[Mary] said,
"how can this be as I have not known a man"
"how can I be pregnant when i
have not had sexual intercourse?"
we aren't talking' about "pre-marital sex" as
there is no such thing as "pre-marital sex"
under The Law.
an almah -is- a virgin
while one may be able to insinuate that Mary
could be called "Joseph's woman" because of
contractual betrothal, they are not yet
"married" thru the sexual union.
the closest stretch you can get is to say
that a betrothed woman is a 'wife' who
is not yet 'married'
so, while one could call a betrothed woman an almah,
one could not say that a married woman is an almah.
that's the very finest line one could draw.
an "almah wife"
not an "almah married"
almah is never used in the "old testament" to
mean anything but a woman who is not married.
the "sign" is "almah pregnant"
==
Isaiah 7:14 {literal]
"YHWH give sign almah pregnant bear son call name Immanuel"
==
the "sign" in this case is "almah pregnant"
Isaiah simply claims his own children
as signs that his prophecy is assured.
but -his- children were not born to
an almah, they were born to his -wife-
==
Isaiah 54:1
Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear; break forth
into singing, and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail
with child: for more are the children of the desolate than
the children of the married wife[Ba'al], saith YHWH.
==
a married woman is either a Ba'al or an
Ishash, and in this case, it's a Ba'al.
==
Isaiah 54:6 For YHWH hath called thee as a woman forsaken
and grieved in spirit, and a wife[ishash] of youth, when thou
wast refused, saith thy God.
==
Isaiah's "married wife" is -not- an almah.
and it simply isn't a strange thing or sign
worthy for a ba'al or an ishash to be pregnant.
Jesus can have several names,
given that he is one of those
lineage people.
Jesus Immanuel bar-Joseph etc.etc.etc.
Timothy Sutter
i think Mary is like a microcosm of the entire earth setting
like; "life on earth is a virgin birth"
because it sure does look like some unseen hand
engineered life on earth.
and the 'virgin birth' is just -that- in microcosm.
YHWH God speaks things that be not
as though they be, and they are.
which would make Jesus, the incarnate declaration of YHWH.
sure, i believe that, that's like the "ABCs" to me.
ThomMadura
> God made peppermint sticks,
ROFL
What a fairy tale!!!!!
ThomMadura
I am not suggesting it at all
IT remains a COMPLETELY TRUE statement
No supernatural god is proven to exist
ALL of your quotes from your fairy tale books fails to provide ANY proof.
ThomMadura
>> Timothy Sutter wrote:
>
>>>> Timothy Sutter wrote:
>>>>> God acts according to God's own Will
Nope
No one can prove a god exist to do that one.
>
> so, ...Jesus comes, does his thing
>
>
> and they all lived happily ever after...
>
>
> not =quite=.... THE END
>
Another fairy tale = complete fiction -
ThomMadura
> further citations after some comments
> should lend clarity to the understanding
> of BaaL as well.
>
Baal is just another part of the fairy tale
No more real that Humpty Dumpty.
ThomMadura
> you weren't created to walk under
> the dictates of a forced hand.
>
> you were created
> to walk in a manner befitting
> the children of God,
Nope - I was created due to the actions of MY parent - both of whom were
human -
THERE are no children of god that you can prove exist.
EVERY human that we know of had parents - Human parents.
ThomMadura
> the knowledge of God which
> comes -from- God -to- man
> is a personal witness by God.
THere is NO knowledge of a god that YOU can prove.
Until a god can be proven to exist - the idea that you have any
knowledge from a god is nonsense.
And while many claim personal witness to their gods - it is meaningless
without the ability to VERIFY it - and none can be verified.
THE problem with those who claim personal witness is that we have such
from people of every religion. IF we were to believe everyone who
claimed such things - the earth would have THOUSANDS of creators -and
hundreds of thousands of gods.
Soo - since EVERYTHING about gods was written by HUMANS - every piece of
so called scripture had a human origin - the claims are only as good as
the PROOF that can be verified by others.
However - theists like YOU add additional claims to the mix - to
"support" their inability to provide any proof - by claiming
supernatural worlds - new dimension - and all sorts of stupidity like that.
OF course - those claims also rest on their ability to prove they are
true - which thiests cannot as well.
ThomMadura
>
Nope - NO one has ANY such knowledge that they can prove is true.
THAT is because they cannot prove their god exist as well.
ThomMadura
> On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 10:21:02 -0400, ThomMadura<Tomm...@optonline.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On 4/23/2011 10:11 AM, Timothy Sutter wrote:
>>>> Timothy Sutter wrote:
>>>
>>>>> see, God is already perfectly
>>>>> reflected in God's own Word.
>>>
>>>>> God is Breathing, eternally, God.
>>>
>>>
>>> ThomMadura wrote:
>>>
>>>> Al nice claims
>>>
>>>> WHen YOU can provide PROOF of what YOU are claiming - BY all means post
>>>> it here and alert the media
>>>
>>>> Until then - claiming that you know a word of god- is unsupported BY you
>>>> because you still have yet to prove the existence of a supernatural god
>>>> as well.
>>>
>>>
>>> aside from the implication that
>>> God has not appeared to people in
>>> a spectacular array of light and such,
>>
>> None have been proven to have done so
>>
>> CAN YOU PROVE any such thing- of course not.
>> OR you would have posted real proof
>>
>> YOU have none
>>
>
> But he has,
No - not those fairy tales
as witnessed by Saul, as witnessed by the entire Jewish nation
> in the wilderness, as witnessed by many at the baptism of Jesus, as
> witnessed by the disciples when Jesus ascended into the third heaven and so
REALLY - you have VERIFIABLE PROOF of that one
Remember - we already KNOW that the bible is a book of fairy tales -
many of which can be proven NOT TO BE TRUE without question.
Funny - that there is NO proof that the Jewish nation wandered in the
desert - in fact - there is NOTHING to establish that they were in
bondage to before that supposed time either. A whole nation would leave
behind lots of refuse- yet it simply is not there.
As far as the ascension - JOHN clearly says that NO man has seen god.
It would take a god to bodily rise over the clouds - a human does NOT
have that power. SO - the bible itself contradicts the resurrection MYTH.
IT is a fairy tale - in a book of fairy tales - that has MANY things we
KNOW are not true.
WHen you have proof outside of the fairy tale books of religions - by
all means alert the media.
> on.
>
>>>
>>> when some say that God has not been
>>> 'proven' to exist, they mean they have
>>> no referrence to mechanical measuring
>>> devices which detect God;
>>
>> Snip NONSENSE
>>
>> No - we are NOT talking about any mechanical measuring devices
>>
>> THAT is more idiocy from a theist
>>
>> Things are not true just because YOU claim them to be-
>> YOUr statements rest on YOUR ability to provide proof of them
>>
>
> Of course he cannot prove them on his own.
OF course not - MYTHS do not have any real ability to do anything. THEY
themselves are fictions - not reality
But -He is supposed to be almighty - even though we KNOW that is not
possible to begin with. IF you are now admitting that he is NOT almighty
- we are making progress!
Timothy Sutter
> > further citations after some comments
> > should lend clarity to the understanding
> > of BaaL as well.
ThomMadura wrote:
> Baal is just another part of the fairy tale
> No more real that Humpty Dumpty.
so, anyway, supposedly,
to some people, the space
between people anihilates
them all.
supposedly, this is because, you
immediately become an object in
other people's sight.
and then, you begin to see yourself
as an object until you slowly declare
yourself as an object.
you're not a person any more, you're
the object whose identity is dictated
to you by the fact that there are other
people who first see you in the same manner
in which they see a table or a chair or
an apple tree or a water fountain or a
paper cup, and you receive signals
as to how you are seen and
behave accordingly.
...i was gunna include 'garbage can'
but nobody uses garbage cans anymore.
and then you're seen according to your
usefulness in carrying out tasks and
achieving ends.
you're a shovel you're
a rake you're a hand grenade.
and the other people are all
just objects in your sight.
and they behave as if they are objects.
you have ceased to exist.
make yourself useful...
you are obsolete...
oh, go ahead and convince yourself
that you don't objectify everything
and everyone but you'll find in a
very real way, that you are bound
to do just this.
and then someone else can come along and say;
it's the space between people that
gives them all unique identites.
the identification of similarity
characterizes 'the other' as detached
and dissimilar from the observer.
'the other' is like you but not you
you need to know what you
are and what you are not.
and now your little conflict is in place.
define yourself before the
world defines you for you.
but you're already in the process
of defining the world and they you.
you define them as objects
how will you define yourself
in any different manner?
certainly you don't want to sit there
and claim that your love for strawberry
iced cream is a defining attribute.
so you're stuck saying;
"i draw maps"
and you say this because you're
not a very good tap dancer.
so basically, you've got the world defining
you as an object, you defining yourself as
an object, a natural environment composed
of objects, some burdensome overlords
who'd like to keep you as an object,
and this tiny voice inside you
that claims it isn't an object.
who else or what else anywhere will
agree with that tiny voice and tell
you that you are not an object?
what is that tiny voice?
isn't it the same voice that
desribes you and everyone
else as objects?
or do you have two tiny voices?
one who objectifies all things and
one buried under a mountain of rubble?
maybe there's only one you and also
some hideous reverberation like a
hand grenade in a steel container
ripping you to bits, and leaving
you buried under a pile of rubble.
who's gunna dig you out
from under all that rubble
and reconfigure your True Self?
One who is not an object, of course.
One to whom you can not
offer up anything in return.
therefore, One to whom you
can not become an object.
the One who sees you.
the One who can show you.
the One who knows you.
the One who loves you.
an other angle,
you have this tiny speck of
what we'll loosely describe
as your identity.
and you place that identity into objects.
objects that have no sense
of the identity which
you are giving them.
.......look that way--->
you practically change places with the chair.
you become the inanimate blob
inhabitting a space that directs
the reality of the given set
of circumstances.
and now, when you leave the chair,
it has captured your identity and,
for you, anyone who sits there takes
on your personalized attribution.
so, you may find yourself wanting
to stand guard over the chair so
that no one can take your place
and rob you of your identity.
and now, you either say;
"my identity is locked in the
chair and i don't want anyone
else to have it."
or;
"no one really did take possession
of the identity that i ceded to
the chair of my own free will."
no one, who had no identity
of [his] own, now has yours.
and you're completely objectified again.
only now, you're tied to a chair
that has no real identity looking
for your self in other objects
that have no real identity either.
you've got one eye on an empty chair
and the other eye is looking for
no one, who has run off with
your identity.
and you get stuck carrying around
this false persona who is a multiplex
aggregate of objectified traits.
but that's all olde news to you.
where are you now?
up from the minutia there
arise some funny bits.
an obvious one;
the erection of a communal
totem that presumably best
describes the ceded identities
of a given group of people.
but we already know that the existing
conditions describe in people this sense
of ownership and the need to possess
objects that placate the sense of
alienation to self,
coupled with this desire to lay
claim to the identities which we
feel we ceded to the existing
conditions in the first place.
so, you turn over your individuality
to a group ethos that appears to
possess all the things which you
crave for yourself but of which
you feel impoverished.
and then, the group ethos becomes your identity.
and your objectification is complete.
you now exist for the sole
purpose of serving the totem.
leaving much more than a bowl of rice
for a momentary identification with
the objectified composite persona
which sits in your chair.
never truly enjoying the 'freedoms'
that you'd like to think the totem
represents and slowly realizing that
the totem actually represents your
total objectification and loss
of personal liberties.
developing in you this sense of
rebellion from the group ethos
and a complete alienation from self.
giving birth to iconoclasts who seek
to rip fame and fortune from their
perches in your temples of idolatry.
which proves meaningless, because
they will immediately stand themselves
back up on their perches representative
of the covetous desire to retain that
thing you never truly possessed
in the first place.
intimate knowledge of God
personal uniqueness
Love
these things which God's Spirit is
these things which man's
totem can never be.
man's totem is not even alive.
it is the signatory
representation of his
alienation from God.
==
Micah 4:4-5
But everyone shall sit under his vine
and under his fig tree, And no one shall
make them afraid; For the mouth of
YHWH Defender has spoken.
For all people walk each in the name of his god,
But we will walk in the name of YHWH our God
Forever and ever.
=
Ezekiel 8:1-3
And it came to pass in the sixth year,
in the sixth month, on the fifth day of
the month, as I sat in my house with the
elders of Judah sitting before me, that
the hand of the Lord GOD fell upon me there.
Then I looked, and there was a likeness,
like the appearance of fire from the
appearance of His waist and downward, fire;
and from His waist and upward, like the
appearance of brightness, like the color
of amber. He stretched out the form of a hand,
and took me by a lock of my hair; and the Spirit
lifted me up between earth and heaven, and
brought me in visions of God to Jerusalem,
to the door of the north gate of the inner court,
where the seat of the image of jealousy was,
which provokes to jealousy.
==
did you know, that when YHWH
was "King" in Israel, there was no
such thing as a "royal" lineage?
no particularly "special" people
who were gooder or better than
anyone else?
God doesn't die, there's
no need to set up any sort
of dynastic succession.
and those people kept erecting
that totem to their own empty
chair, while God is sitting right
there amidst the Mercy Seat.
"you named -me- the burdensome overlord
while you bowed to your own tyrannical rule"
"this after i yanked you -out-
of slavery to the status quo
with a strong hand."
they re-enslaved themselves
because they didn't believe
freedom was possible.
they didn't believe God
could give them rest.
and so, God chased them
around with a sword instead.
out of the frying pan and
in to the furnace of affliction.
the pretense of man's totem is
more reprehensible that slavery
to the status quo.
a pretend freedom for some
on the backs of those who
carry the empty chair.
and like the seed that fell in amongst
the briar patch or sticker bushes,
"the cares of this world
choked off the growth"
and on the rocks;
"the heat of controversy
anihilated the growth"
the one bowed to the status quo
and the other bowed to peer pressures.
because the slavery to the world was
more comfortable than a freedom that
required a perceived element of risk.
but we have continued hope for your
progression towards Christ, and
and the elimination of anything
that would stand itself in your way.
look here below,
emphasize these things which relate
to the aforementioned problems
associated with the status quo
and personal identity;
God makes people "kings"
and "priests" and gives
them a "new name" which
only they know.
what is a name?
a device for personal identification.
by assigning you a new name which
only you know, you are granted a
personal identity which is
unique to yourself.
by making you a king and a priest
you are given personal authority
and responsibility coupled with
the necessary understandings and
wisdoms necessary to meld with God
in unity with no self centered
attitudes which bring on schism.
you'll see below that God is the
Temple willed to mankind thru Christ
and you are a component of that Temple.
you'll see that God has a personal
identification and is unique, writes
that upon you thru Christ, and sets
you apart as unique while declaring
you a component of the Body of Christ,
which is God's Temple, which is God.
long story short;
you 'serve' God by fulfilling your
potential and administering that
potential to each other.
you don't cede your identity
to the existing conditions,
and an imaginary group ethos,
you fulfill your potential in
the service of the Body of Christ
of which you are a vital component.
---
Revelation 5:9-10, 19:12, 2:17,
3:12, 21:22, 1:6, 7:15-17
---
==
Revelation 5:9-10
And they sang a new song, saying:
“You are worthy to take the scroll,
And to open its seals; For You were slain,
And have redeemed us to God by Your blood
Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation,
And have made us kings and priests to our God;
And we shall reign on the earth.”
=
Revelation 1:6
and has made us kings and priests to His God and Father,
to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.
=
Revelation 19:12
12 His eyes were like a flame of fire,
and on His head were many crowns. He had
a name written that no one knew
except Himself.
=
Revelation 2:17
17 “He who has an ear, let him hear what
the Spirit says to the churches. To him
who overcomes I will give some of the
hidden manna to eat. And I will give
him a white stone, and on the stone
a new name written which no one knows
except him who receives it.”’
=
Revelation 3:12
12 He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar
in the temple of My God, and he shall go out
no more. I will write on him the name of
My God and the name of the city of My God,
the New Jerusalem, which comes down out
of heaven from My God. And I will
write on him My new name.
=
Revelation 21:22
But I saw no temple in it, for
the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb
are its temple.
=
Revelation 7:15-17
Therefore they are before the throne of God,
and serve Him day and night in His temple.
And He who sits on the throne will dwell
among them. They shall neither hunger anymore
nor thirst anymore; the sun shall not strike them,
nor any heat; for the Lamb who is in the midst
of the throne will shepherd them and lead them
to living fountains of waters. And God will
wipe away every tear from their eyes.”
===
Timothy Sutter
> >> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > one point being, you cannot suggest that
> > God has no 'proof'
ThomMadura wrote:
> No supernatural god is proven to exist
""As hydrogen and helium nuclei fuse
some mass is convertend into energy.""
note; "mass is converted in to energy"
this energy is a product -of-
massive interaction.
now, back to the precise conditions at time T = 0
not time T = (0 + x) but, time T = 0
with this in mind, at the very precise 'moment'
that we have any massive object/particle at all,
we are no longer at time T = 0, but,
are now, at time T = (0 + x)
now, let's just say as to how "light"
travelling through a "vacuum"
is not particulary "hot" nor "cold"
that, a "photon", or coalesced blob of photons,
travelling through a "vacuum" need not be said
to be losing any of its energies
to the environment of the "vacuum"
and that what they do carry,
is an oscillating wave pattern
and that this oscillating wave pattern, may be tranfered
to massive objects, which may be present somewhere in the
'non-vacuous' space,
and, that, when and if, some massive object,
interacts with photons, and some oscillating
wave pattern is transferred from the photon
to the material object,
this may be reckoned in such a manner,
which can, now, be decribed as a
"coherent energy transfer"
what does this boil down to?
well, in certain respects, -if- one
contends that, at some time T = 0
there was some immense blob of light,
and -no- massive material objects,
that no 'coherent energy transfer'
would be possible,
and so, "coolness" and "hotness" would be irrelevant terms,
and, as it were, "hot and cold...wear the same suit"
and then...
we still have no trigger,
but we -do- have time T = 0
and so, now, you either have something purposefully
preventing or something purposefully causing
an "anharmonicity"
=within= -this- sort of situation, which sets off
some sort of emanation of a 'stuff' which has properties
such as an interconversion between energy and mass.
where this "anharmonicity" would be, or
could be, reckoned as the appearance of
"constructive and destructive interference patterns"
and that, where there are "constructive patterns"
we experience "solidness" and where there are
"destructive patterns" we experience "empty space."
mind you, the very precise moment that
we have any particulates at all,
we are no longer at time T = 0,
but, at time T = (0 + x)
which is to say this,
-if- one were to contend that at time T = 0
there was some situation that could
be described as "pure light"
first, this "pure light" is -not- what detectors
in the material manifestation are experiencing,
they are experiencing energies generated -by-
massive particle interactions,
and second, this "pure light," has no relevant "anharmonicity",
no "oppositional forcework" is present which can trigger
the emanation of the stuff which interconverts matter/energy,
and so, it is valid to suggest a conscious nudge,
if not more than that.
and so, it is still valid to conclude
some sort of conscious interference,
and this derives a conscious awareness
which "pre-dates" the matter/energy physical manifestation,
which, is not at all such a horrifying notion,
that it must be denounced based on personal bias alone.
it's sort of like PURE LIGHT purposefully brings about
"matter/energy" where "matter/energy" now produces
a sort of Image of PURE LIGHT called
'electromagnetic radiation' where "mass"
is the "filtering prism" or "lens"
"my physical being magnifies YHWH"
feel free to see things differently.
with the PURE LIGHT we have PURE CONCIOUSNESS
actionable awareness
in the =fullness= of PURE LIGHT
there is no empty shadow
some sort of conciousness emulation is present now,
in the physical manifestation, and this consciousness emulation,
-can be- comprehended by the PURE CONSCIOUSNESS
maybe that's a 'revelation' to some
when that PURE CONSCIOUSNESS plants
a finer understanding of Eternity
in to your 'mind'
et cetera...
Timothy Sutter
> >> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> >>>> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> >>>>> God acts according to God's own Will
ThomMadura wrote:
> No one can prove a god exist to do that one.
if there is nothing and only nothing
the only possible replica of nothing is nothing,
and, nothing can do nothing and only nothing is.
in order for something to be,
something always is.
what is
the original something
the original indivisible entirety
that which is
activity potential
something can happen
something does something
something happens
if nothing is nothing is done
something that is is something that does
is does
something does something to something
nothing else is
that can do something
to something
is does
is acts on is
is is not acted upon
because nothing else is
how is does is known to is
this is who is is
the one who knows
is is is
something that is is something
that can be doing something
something that is is something that
can be making something happen.
and there is the origin
the beginning
and the end of all regression
The Origin
Is Is
The Primary Source
Is aware
given the nature of this universe,
postulating God is perfectly reasonable.
the material universe is not infinitely old
the material universe has a beginning
unreasonable to assume that the smallest
volume of the universe is finite and non-zero.
zero volume completely removes any
possibility of harmonic oscillation
from matter.
now, show yourself that there
is no tuning fork to -induce-
a vibration in anything
else anywhere.
now, what made the material universe ignite?
no accidental ignition is possible.
no accidental ignition is possible.
no accidental ignition is possible.
there simply is no trigger.
and there is your absolute necessity
for a Creative Personality.
genesis can -not- be an accident.
and that which you can see now,
was brought into being by this
Creative Personality which
you can not see.
otherwise, the material universe
never ignites, it remains static.
The Creator Made the material universe happen.
it's that simple.
this is -reasonable-
and that's all that matters.
it is -reasonable-
i did mention the "semi-permeable membrane" bit before...
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > so, either you say that all people have the Holy Spirit
> > abiding from flesh birth and no matter what they do or think,
> > it is the Holy Spirit who does and thinks....<...>
someone said:
> Is God spirit?
more to the point, is hydrogen gas, "spirit"?
is gold and platinum, "spirit"?
someone said:
> Is God infinite?
hydrogen gas, gold and platinum do not seem to be "infinite"
based on keen observations, these -things- are "finite"
someone said:
> If God is INFINITE SPIRIT (holy Spirit)
> then there is NOWHERE where God is not.
if you draw a distinction between matter and "spirit"
then, it may be somewhat like a "semi-permeable membrane"
because we may be able to suggest that "God's Spirit"
has no such "exclusion principle" as does matter
and therefore, can be present 'where' matter is present,
without -being- itself, made of matter, while
we cannot say the same thing about matter
in that matter is finite and not present
where there is no matter present.
and now there's the prospect of -interaction-
and, 'finite' matter may not be able to
-comprehend- "Spirit" unless that Spirit
make itself known.
man seems to be in possession of a "consciousness emulator"
while God is "Pure Consciousness"
and then there is "communication"
or the prospect thereof of such a communcation
between said "consciousness emulators"
and God's own Pure Consciousness
and this is the distinction we point out.
that of communicative interaction betwen God and man
and not just assuming that being in a universe where God IS
demands such communication without direction.
> the semi-permeable membrane
if, you skip over the "procedure and methodology" section,
you will never be able to compare a result
with the "results" section,
and it would never be my compelling element
to -plead- with -anyone- who will -not- follow
the "procedures and methodologies" section
and simply says;
"i don't get your results and therefore,
your results are invalid"
in other words,
i don't have to plead with anyone or any group
to follow the "procedures and methodologies" section,
but who, simply -insist- that their ignorance and
lack of knowledge is the -only- _possible_ result.
all the while, 'they' or whomsoever is/are all to willing
to take dish fed results sections about phenomena that
-they- have never experienced personally for granted
and -without- "personal experience" as "evidence"
so, they 'believe' one thing that they have never
=personally= experienced because they want to be
part of that group who follows such and such an ideology,
but make demands of another group for -evidence- that
-they- are simply unwilling to gather up -by- following
the proper and correct "procedures and methodologies"
and so, by personal preference
and personal preference alone,
they accept one ideological framework as correct
-without- personal experience -as- 'evidence'
and reject another ideological framework
simply because they won't -look- -for-
the evidences themselves, and rush precipitously
to the conclusion that there is no evidence to be seen,
based on group favorability and group favorability alone.
anyway, a semi-permeable membrane, in the natural,
is like a grating that allows some things to pass through
and yet, prevents other things from passing through,
like maybe sodium ions which are small can pass through
and potassium ions which are larger cannot,
so, an electircal gradient it set up and this
helps to regulate heart contrctions etc.
so, in likeness,
this is a gradient which certain phenomena
can pass ---> in a one way fashion
you may not be able to just waltz over through
the semi-permeable membrane and "see" God almighty,
but God almighty, not only can, but -must- come
'through the veil' to you.
and 'communion' is possible but then we have
to, also, deal with the 'signal to noise' problems...
ThomMadura
> On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 10:15:31 -0400, ThomMadura<Tomm...@optonline.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On 4/23/2011 9:42 AM, Timothy Sutter wrote:
>>> God acts according to God's own Will
>>> founded in that Love which human beings
>>> aspire to comprehend.
>>
>> THAT depends on How you define the word "love"
>>
>> THe god of the bible was a mass murderer - committed infanticide - and
>> genocide - and even gave the directions on how to PROPERLY sell your
>> daughter into slavery. HT god of the bible was hundreds of times more
>> evil than Charles Manson - and those who would worship this scum are stupid.
>>
>> THE god of the bible - where numbers are mentioned - murdered over two
>> million. He told his people to DASH the heads of the infants and
>> children of the people they conquered and ENJOY doing it.
>>
>> He also murdered untold numbers of infants and babies - and children too
>> young to be responsible in the Passover - and the great flood.
>>
>
> So which is it? You said the flood never existed, no you say it does?
You really need to keep up - read from the top again
I am talking about a MYTH in a MYTHICAL story here.
Both the god and the flood are parts of the MYTH. The god is unproven -
and the FLOOD never happened in reality.
IF the bible fairy tales define the MYTH called god - that fiction is
defined by the story on the bible which contains all sorts of EVIL on
his part.
THe original poster is trying to say that the god CHARACTER in the bible
is the personification of the word "love"
Based on the story in the bible - that fictional character did abhorrent
and horrendous crimes against humanity - which do not fit with MY
definition of the word.
My point was that the word "love" would not apply to a character that
committed genocide - infanticide - mass murder and many other crimes
against humanity. THAT is why I said - that would depend on how you
define the word "love".
>
>> THe idea that murdering infants and children is "love" is simply a
>> bastardization of the word.
>>
>> And anyone who would worship such a monster as "love" has no
>> comprehension of what love is.
>>
>
> You don't know that,
Sure I do
I am a father - and a foster father, a grandfather - and a great
grandfather as well. I know what it means to love children. I do not
consider DROWNING all of them to be an example of "love". IT does not
agree with the definition of the word in any dictionary. ANd If you
asked a million parents about it - I would believe that ALL SANE parents
would agree with me.
THe idea that anyone would consider a story about a person wiping out
the virtually the entire population of children - infants - and babies
in a flood - to be an example of "love" fails to understand the word
"love".
Timothy Sutter
> > the knowledge of God which
> > comes -from- God -to- man
> > is a personal witness by God.
ThomMadura wrote:
> THere is NO knowledge of a god that YOU can prove.
so, some will state that the only
"knowledge" one may possess is
in the form of:
"empirical sense perception memory impressions"
that's it, that's your knowledge,
that's all you can ever know.
memories of objects you have seen,
heard, smelled, tasted and or touched.
all we claim is that the Holy Spirit
leaves a memory impression but, itself,
clicks no dials on any interferometer.
backtrack for a moment to the nature
of language and knowledge dissemination.
bascially, all linguistic
efforts by man are of
this form;
you have a sensory stimulus,
and you have a verbal utterance.
you a take verbal utterance
and arbitrarily attach it
to a sensory stimulus.
that is, a set of persons 'agrees'
that the vocalized effort, "bloo" shall
be attached to the sensory stimuli of
of what they see when they stare up
at the midday sky on a clear day.
so, now, when they are removed from the
sensory stimulus, they can relate the
persistent memories of that stimulus
to each other -without- the sensory
stimulus being present.
that is, they can speak of their memories
of the midday sky, at nighttime, and amongst
people of the grouping that have seen the
midday sky, and have agreed that that
stimulus shall be referred to as "bloo"
this communication effort falls
apart for people outside of the group.
that is, some other group may have attached
the verbal utterance "bloo" to the smell of
garlic and when you utter "bloo" to them,
it triggers a different archived memory impression.
fine, language is somewhat arbitrary,
screams of pain being fairly universal.
when describing things you sense with
the big five, you always use similarities
to others things impressed upon you
by the big 5.
language itself is something of a circular argument.
at the foundation of all of your linguistics
is that things are defined by what they are.
"This Thing Is What It Is"
language is a brute force, mechanical, device, at best.
don't let -it- abuse -you-
use -it- with care.
"sweet potatoes are orange"
what is "orange"?
"orange is the color of sweet potatoes"
it's all mostly an arbitrary assignment.
there's no fundamental reason why
"sweet potatoes" and "orange"
should be tossed together.
they are just tags for memory impression triggers.
anyway, back to the Holy Spirit,
by the very nature of the experience,
attaching vocal utterance to it presents
some clear difficulties.
to what shall one 'liken' the memory
impression of a stimulus that clicks
no dials on any interferometer?
we suggest that God resembles a "Rock"
in what way does God resembles a "Rock"?
the -type- of memory impression
that you gain when you inspect some
artifact as 'concrete' as a rock,
is left behind by the Holy Spirit.
you distance yourself from a rock that
you have inspected, you carry a memory
impression of that rock with you
wherever you go.
you meet Jesus thru the Holy Spirit
and you carry away a definite
memory impression that Lives.
one minor difference,
your memory of a granite stone is static,
and your memory of Christ thru the
Holy Spirit is dynamic.
you don't 'see' God with your eyes,
but your mind is impressed with
a Living memory.
that's the closest i can put the experience
into words that you may have some sort of
common experience with which to compare.
now, i've already gone to some lengths
to acquaint you with the non-atomic universe.
so, you are -not- free to tell me
that i am remembering things
that have no existance.
because we've already shown you that
the things which you -do- see and hear
and taste and feel and smell, by necessity,
emanated from some 'thing' that you
can -not- likewise experience.
that is, all citations of genesis from
singularity reduce to a severe acknowledgement
of a 'physically unknowable' 'non-atomic' world.
that is, a world that can -not- be visited with
the empirical sensory apparatus is absolutely
necessitated by genesis from singularity.
the only thing left is to check and test
that -my- empirical sensory apparatus is
functioning properly.
which i do on a regular basis and can
rest assured that my apparatus is
suffering from -no- organic damage.
i do not receive persistent memory impressions
of artifacts that i have -not- experienced.
and the memory impressions left by artifacts
that i am experiencing well reflect the
acknowledgement of standard by concensus.
that is, if i tell you
that the sky is blue and
has some clouds,
when i fully describe that experience,
anyone in the set of people who use the
same vocal utterance will be able to
recognize my description as
'correct' by 'agreement'.
the best a 'non-believer' can say with regards
to God is that they have -not- the same
experience, and therefore they do -not-
comprehend even my very best linguistic
efforts at description.
what they can -not- even -suggest- is
that what i am experiencing is a phantom.
there should be enough here that i don't
need to reprise the details as to why
such a proclamation is unfounded.
# my Salvation is not just
# a "new" "personal ideology."
# i'm sure i've mentioned the direct
# memory impressions left by the unseen.
Timothy Sutter
> > should lend clarity to the understanding
> > of BaaL as well.
# so fine, God is One God.
# and knowing God is "Love"
and how do we know this?
we demonstrated that no trigger
of metastability -could- exist
to initiate material genesis.
we assigned the absolute
necessity for Creative origin.
and Creative origin -is- Love.
that -is- part of what -it- is.
in part, Love -is- Creative origin.
remember the linguistics bit.
in the final analysis,
the object defines itself.
the semantic triggers
do not define the object.
"purple fragrant sweet spicy and floral"
does not define "lavendar"
the object itself, held
in your grubby little paws,
-that- defines "lavendar"
and while "Love Creator Savior Counsellor Comforter..."
may trigger "God" in your mind,
when we say "Love is Creation"
we are calling a thing by what it is.
but that which defines God -is- God.
when God overshadows your consciousness,
then you can say that you know God.
you cannot say that you know God by
delineating a set of memory triggers.
any more than you can say that
you know lavendar by delineating
a set of its attributes.
that is, if i inspect lavendar,
and set down a list of attributes,
and you come along and convince
yourself that you comprehend
the entire listing,
even if my listing is painfully detailed,
all you will ever know is my description.
that is, until you pick up
a sprig of it yourself.
long story short;
when you examine a sprig of lavendar,
-that- is -your- knowledge of that thing.
-not- -my- painfully detailed description.
so, we use the term "Love"
in our description of God.
and now, all we wish to do
is to cordom off "Love" to
some first approximation,
as Creation.
having already demonstrated that
Creative origin is necessitated
by material genesis.
not and never that some -thing-
set off a metastable trigger to
initiate the material genesis,
but that no such metastable trigger
-can- exist, and therefore, by necessity,
a purposeful, directed, creative event
-must- have initiated genesis.
and we define both the event
and the event maker as "Love"
and then, we seek to broaden
out our definition of "Love"
to more thoroughly describe
the state of affairs, -before-
the first Creative event.
the Creative event is an expression of Love
the Creator is what Love is.
and, a Creative event does
not speak of selfish desires.
a Creative event does not suggest;
"I and Only I"
and so, we say that "Love"
is an outward effusion
from One to an Other,
because a Creative event flows out
of a Creator and is received
with applesauce [applause]
when and if we inspect the
Creation of the Spirit Host
we'll see that the same sort
of thing applies there as well.
but, that Spirit Host applauded
the Creation of the Material universe.
all we suggest is that God, also,
applauded the Creation of the
Spirit Host -by- God.
that is, when God began to Create for God,
God applauded this effort as a proof of "Love"
a proof of a thing -they- already knew by Faith.
and you get this cyclic roundabout,
they are Love, they Create, they are One God,
they Create, they are One God, they are Love,
they are One God, they are Love, they Create.
now, you'll see funny things by
going back and forth to attenuate
your vision.
God spoke the material in to existance
and then, -formed- man from the stuff.
God didn't -speak- man in
to existance, at first.
God is now speaking God in to man thru Faith.
and God is forging a new creation
in man that is exactly like God.
God's image of man as image of God
began to be perfected when God pulled
out the companion from within the man.
before the companion was pulled out,
the companion was hidden, even to man.
in God, the Companion dwells within
and is not experienced by any
other but God.
but, the Companion is God.
in a sense, man is to image of God as
'list of attributes' is to knowledge
of 'lavender'
that is, man is like a list of attributes
that describe God in likeness, but God
-is- the thing itself.
like, for instance, man's 'sight' is a sort
of 'description' of God's sight in a similar
manner as a paragraph of words that describe
human sight is not human sight itself but
only a description of human sight.
like, if you say things like;
"light bounces off of some object and impinges
on the pins and cones in the retina and leaves
an inverted image of that particular object
which is transmitted to the brain on neurons
and a person 'sees' the object in 'his' mind"
this description is -not- human sight itself,
but a wordy description of the thing itself,
and now, we do a recursion and say that human
sight itself, is just a descriptive image
-of- God's own vision.
where God's own vision is not filtered in any manner.
see, man is -only- an 'image' of God.
God is the defining knowledge of God.
man is only somewhat -like- God.
but -they- had poor communication.
for instance, those Two that were One Flesh
-somewhat- like, as God is One God, fell short
of that Unity which -is- God and experienced
a 'want' within each other than blinded
their 'eyes to God'.
snuffed out their 'lamps'
before they were ever lit.
we may say that God formed the Spirit Host
from a God-breathed substance of Faith
and we've mentioned, at some lengths,
the "want" experienced in Lucifer. and
how this revealed a "darkened"
understanding.
"Micha el" who is also, 'like God'
remained Faithful, and stands
as testament to God's Love.
has no want
knows no sin
bows before Christ.
YHWH is God of Gods.
this, while unknowing of the 'Companion'
a 'Companion' "Micha el" comes
to understand thru -our- message.
in fact, we -are- "Micha el's"
knowledge of the Companion.
a knowledge we gain thru the
indwelling of The Holy Spirit.
and Love is perfected.
this is the condensed version.
but one taste of God's Love
and the scales will drop from your eyes.
and, in an instant,
in the twinkling of an eye,
you'll realize
God is Love.
this isn't finished.
if it looks like there are gaps and
'blind' spots, chalk it up to our nature.
on closer inspection, new levels of
missing connectivity are bound to appear
which we can paint in with finer
and finer strokes.
but we say that God, not only has a far wider
field of vision, all encompassing, if you will,
but, that God has the cognitive structure to focus
on the entire spectrum of 'events' in some
simultaneous manner which 'sees' things
as they actually are.
our focus attentuates over time,
God's sight is everywhere in focus.
we look far, we look close,
and time stands between the two.
God sees far and close in the same instant.
God -must- have mercy on us.
accept it.
Timothy Sutter
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > God made peppermint sticks,
> What a fairy tale!!!!!
the conclusion that concious interference patterns excited
the material universe to appear from not being there is valid
inasmuch as no accidental triggering mechanism may be cited
and therefore purposeful action is required.
the exact nature of any pre-onset formulation
is unknown to physical determination,
but, we have no way of placing any
physical metastability into that formulaion
so as to make allowances for any accidental
triggering and therefore, purposeful action
is a valid conclusion and purposeful action
implies conscious awareness and conscious
awareness implies Being.
and so, while human invented physical measuring devices
and humanly devised physical interferomters
may not be detecting this conscious Being
we have reason to suggest that the human consciousness
or "consciousness emulator" as i tend to suggest -is-
the interferometer that may have direct communication
with this Being who exists from before teh developement
of time space and matter or, the physical manifesttion.
and then it only remains for =you= or any other
inquisitive personality to establish commuications
with this Being, if at all possible but, we christians
maintain that such a communicative effort is available
but that it must -come-, primarily, from the
'other side' as it were.
meaning, pure human deduction, while able
to draw the valid conclusion that such Being IS,
it, pure human deduction, is not a direct communication
in itself, and we would suggest that this Being -can-
maintain an aloofness to the 'human' beings which
possess the consciousness emulation but which
may not be 'turned on' or 'tuned in' as it were.
if you have no such direct experience
you can say what you like, but any
statements of a purely negative variety
stem from preconceived notion and have
no valid potential for verification.
in other words, we say that you -can-
come to know and be known by "God" but,
if you maintain a negative stance
you have no real way of verifying such a stance.
keep investigating
we have our standards...
one last little bit...
describe a physical phenomenon
that initiates =volume=
[zero volume] --pp--> [volume]
the physical phenomena we can point at
are attributes -of- volume
no volume... no physical phenomena...
"whence comest thou?"
True Light --->[stuff]--> electromagnetic radiation
we need [something] to initiate interference patterns in the True Light
from which the [stuff] emerges which -emits- electromagnetic radiation
and this [something] bears conscious awareness...
this awareness -chooses- to act at a very specific instance
the beginning
not the beginning of True Light and of conscious awareness
but the beginning of the emergence of the [stuff]
which then emits electromagnetic radiation
the beginning of a specific set of interference patterns
the beginning of the dream
-but- this conscious awareness is Ever Awake
there's filtered emulation
and there's the Gift
of direct signal reception
the reemergence of the Ever Awake Conciousness
through direct transmissions of True Light
quantized Being
===
> purpose or accident?
> that's the question.
> "evolution" as a term does not address this question.
> "evolution" becomes a sleight of hand terminology
> like "hocus pocus"
> -proving- "accident" by reproducible experimental means
> is futile...
> "gradual change" is not the issue...
> the crux of the matter is "purpose" or "accident"
> and from the onset, "accident" seems ruled out
> and "purpose" seems evident.
> "purpose" defines conscious intent...
> and conscious intent says "maker"
> ideologically;
>>> "accident" breeds -superstition-
>> superstition breeds -fear-
> "accident" is the blind leading the blind in to a ditch
>>> "purpose" breeds =industriousness=
>> industriousness breeds confident assurance
> "purpose" is YHWH leading you to a free space.
given purpose, can true randomness exist?
yes
and that's part of the beauty of it
where 'true' randomness is not simply
an otherwise predictable outcome which
came unexpectedly, [to an observer]
but, actually -demonstrates- the 'moment' of "decision"
'true' randomness would not be in the actual tumbling of the dice
but, the decision as to when to toss them in the first place.
once the dice are tossed, certain aspects are purely mechanical
and could be predictable
before the dice are tossed,
the conscious decision making process
remains non-mechanical.
of course, as time progresses, there will
be certain 'decisions', also,
which seem "forced" and not 'truly' random...
and some purely mechanical occurrences,
which give the -appearance- of randomness.
the universe only seems strange
because we don't always have a way
of sorting this all out.
purposeful, concious intent, randomly timed...
and
purely mechanical actions which only seem
random to the 'peephole' observer.
but, obviously, from square one
we, as yet, have no mechanism,
so, we are left with purposeful,
concious intent, randomly timed...
and at each next corner, -where-
no mechanism, as yet, exists, we see
purposeful, concious intent, randomly timed...
YHWH
Timothy Sutter
> > you weren't created to walk under
> > the dictates of a forced hand.
> >
> > you were created
> > to walk in a manner befitting
> > the children of God,
ThomMadura wrote:
> EVERY human that we know of had parents - Human parents.
that's right
there is no physical record of
any contiguous breeding population
which includes any non-human organism [X]
and humans.
it is only speculation that such a
contiguous breeding population exists.
such a contiguous breeding population
is not a fact.
the speculation on the existance of
a contiguous breeding population which
includes a non-human organism and humans
certainly seems to be non-verifiable with
any sort of physical observation.
such speculation is a bad 'theory'...
see, my problem with the so-called 'fossil record'
is this, inability to ascertain breeding population.
so, in essence yo uhave people concluding things about
this so-called 'fossil record' with a very key bit of
information not only missing, but unattainable.
so, for instance, someone concludes that two sets
of boney fragments that look somehwhat alike in form
constitute a similar organism, and that two fragments
that look quite dissimilar, constitute variant organisms
all without any way of establishing absolute breeding population.
meaning, -if- you were to dig up something that looked
like a pekinese, and some other thing that looked like
a great dane, you -could- argue about them as if they
were different 'species' to the exclusion of any opinion
that would suggest that they are the same "species",
by "convention" all without any way of determining if
the two fragments were ever able to mate and produce
viable offspring, which, as it turns out, they can.
and, it's also, quite possible, that two bugs,
that look nearly identical may not be able to have
ever produced viable offspring, and, were therefore,
never part of a single contiguous breeding population
and, therefore, not the same 'species' and yet, be
classified -as- the same species with no chnace of
fully demonstrating breeding population, based
on outward appearance alone.
now, you find a variety of bugs, and start
trying to hang "extinct" labels on them
all without any idea as to whether one of -them-
could reproduce viable offspring with a bug that
is wandering about today, even if, it's appearance
has changed somewhat and it looks different as
far as one can tell from a 'fossil'
so, you start making up all these stories about
"extinct" species that you have zero method of
determining relationship with present day finds
with regards to breeding potential.
and then we have the problem of what appears
to be a genetic poverty developing as opposed
to a genetic richness.
take, for instance, the cheetahs and their potential
for extinction because they have had loss in populations
which can not be replenished because much genetic
information has been lost to the population losses
and gentic lethalities are prevalent and the
same sort of situation is occuring
in human beings.
it looks as though genetic poverties are on the rise
and not genetic richness, and this -because- of divergences.
and so, the model from creation would posit
prototype models with a genetic -richness-
which included an array of potential outward expressions
of traits many of which are now classified as variant
-species- by taxonomers but which are, in reality, simply
variant expressions of trait structures that were already
present in the initial prototypes
from square one.
and bones, being what they are, there is little opportunity
of demonstrating absolute breeding populations from bones alone,
and so, the models rise to an impassive ambiguity which
cannot be broken based on that boney evidence.
there simply is no contiguous breeding population to latch on to
to demonstrate any sort of 'interspecies' transformation.
it's inconclusive...
meaning, it's not possible to conclude either of these;
"it is possible that a fossil find could have bred
with a contemporary living organism and produce
viable offspring"
or
"it is not possible that a fossil find could have
bred with a contemporary living organism and produce
viable offspring"
or, "it is possible that a fossil find could have
bred with another fossil find to produce viable offspring"
or, "it is not possible that a fossil find could have
bred with another fossil find and produced viable offspring"
and without that very key information,
all statements concerning fossil relationships to
contemporary organisms are rather meaningless.
there's just no way of establishing
a contiguous breeding population
and so, positting that such a contiguous
breeding population exists is speculation.
not fact...
Timothy Sutter
> > > God made peppermint sticks,
> ThomMadura wrote:
> > What a fairy tale!!!!!
you're not adding, you're not subtracting
you're not synthesizing, you serve no useful purpose here at all.
==
Matthew 12:36-37
But I say to you that for every idle word
men may speak, they will give account of
it in the day of judgment. For by your words
you will be justified, and by your words
you will be condemned."
==
sad to say, there's no such
thing as an 'off hand remark'
nothing's 'off the record,' even when
you talk to your teddy bear at night.
so, you may as well first be looking
over your own shoulder till you've
twisted your own head around in circles.
or just don't care and when
people call you a hypocrite,
you can say to yourself;
"well, yup, i -am- a hypocrite
what do yuh know about that?"
but oh, yeah, right,...
when they suggest to you that
you 'walk on to perfection,'
they don't necessarily mean that
you make your -body- look like
a comic book super hero,
but that you can learn to speak
things right off the top of your
pretty little head that you won't
come back three days later wishing
you could take back into your mouth,
or not speak at all.
see, we no longer see Jesus as
'in the flesh', where once we did
but now we don't any more.
he's taken _humanity_ back to that
place where the Spirit existed as
God from everlasting to everlasting.
and -that- perfection
declares a thing that
is not as though it be.
that is, when God says a thing, it is.
and God operates entirely in "Love"
lucky for us, olde mister forked
tongue don't rule the universe.
the clarity of your vision can
be grasped by the truthfulness
of your words.
how well -do- you see things?
representational coherence?
is the truth really a matter of who sees it?
and even -if- so, you have this tendency
to demand special appreciation for only
-your- point of view and no other.
and only grant a limited appreciation
for anyone else's when it suits your
purposes to do so.
if the truth is independant of viewpoint
it is in your best interest to look
over your own shoulder first.
hoop de do.
---
1 Timothy 4:7-9
...rather, train yourself to be godly.
For physical training is of some value,
but godliness has value for all things,
holding promise for both the present life
and the life to come. This is a trustworthy
saying that deserves full acceptance.
2 Timothy 3:15-17
and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures,
which are able to make you wise for salvation through
faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed
and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and
training in righteousness, so that the man of God may
be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
2 Corinthians 13:10-
This is why I write these things when I am absent,
that when I come I may not have to be harsh in my
use of authority; the authority the Lord gave me
for building you up, not for tearing you down.
Finally, good-by. Aim for perfection, listen to
my appeal, be of one mind, live in peace. And
the God of love and peace will be with you.
----
Timothy Sutter
# shoulder till you've twisted your
# own head around in circles.
you may find yourself claiming
that recognizing your options
makes you different.
makes you new.
makes you what you are.
and maybe you'd be correct,
but none of these so-called 'options'
are of your own devising, and you see
yourself resembling a steel ball in a
childs game, being bounced around by
obstacles of which you had no hand
in standing before you.
and you are basically motivated by
pressing the button for food and
avoiding the hazzards when and
if you are able to do so.
but no matter how safe and well fed
you become, you can't shake this
feeling that you are being played
in someone else's game.
the game board is obviously not yours,
not your creation, and is of an
unalterable physical nature.
and now you see, thru a somewhat
hazy vision, for the first time,
a true option, to be as God,
and define the path to freedom.
God is not dead,
God is very much alive.
always has been always will be.
-you- have not always been alive.
-you- are a new thing.
thru Christ, God can grant you the ability
to see yourself, not thru the filters of
your own minimal self preservation,
but as your own God, declaring your more
perfect Self into existance from the rubble
of your anihilated temporal pseudo-existance.
the existance you see thru the unfiltered
glare of your motivational overlords.
the motivational overlords try to force
your hand, and oftentimes, succeed in automating
a response to whatever obstacle is available.
to alter -you- in -their- image.
like;
"we struggle not against flesh and blood
but against existing conditions and the
motivational overlords."
===
Ephesians 6:12
For our struggle is not against flesh and blood,
but against the rulers, authorities, and powers
of this darkened world, against malicious spiritual
forces in the ethereal realms.
===
it's not exactly a person or persons,
but a general attitude engendered on the air.
and even people who appear to be 'in control'
are under the sway of these motivational overlords.
everyone has a tough job.
aside;
while you are looking over your own shoulder,
you can, then, discuss what you see with God,
God is not making your decisions for you.
God is not forcing your hand.
-you- are not an automated God device.
entr'acte
obviously, having God there to discuss
the vision truncates any infinite
regression at -you-, the overseer
in your own parade.
if there is -you- and only -you-
driven by the existing conditions
and your motivational overlords
you'll end up developing a higher
level of selfish preservation
which we have termed
"Cynical Pragmatism"
- and then you set up man as the measure of all things,
- and begin to compare yourselves to each other, and
- this leads to a weakening or skewing of even some
- proposed standard of excellance.
such a situation inevitably leads
to this capital -C- Cynical pragmatism.
man entirely driven by one's own
self centered interest where
one's only standard is; 'good' means
getting what one wants and 'evil'
means not getting what one wants.
where the standard is as
personal as one's own
self interest.
trapped in a perfect conflict.
freedom's ideal suggests one doesn't
trample another person's freedom
in pursuit of one's own.
Cynical pragmatism runs
headlong in conflict
with freedom.
what have we learned here?
see how God is allowing you more than
you are able to allow yourselves?
God offers you freedom and personal will
you offer yourselves a perfect prison.
this, in part, due to your need to
begin looking over other people's
shoulders before you have remedied
your own private antagonisms with
the existing conditions and your
motivational overlords.
and failing to comparison shop
yourself out of your perfect
little prison.
but remember, God has concerns
as well as you have concerns.
and we suggest to you that God is,
in fact, a logical reasonable
personality. we don't suggest
that God can be held hostage
to semantic gamesmanship,
but we suggest that God is
knowable and reasonably so.
therefore,
as an aside; we discount the possibility
that God is using the 'existing conditions'
to elicit the response which God desires.
if God would use conditioned response to
achieve an automation of personality traits,
God would go strait to an automated process.
that is, it is not reasonable to suggest
that God would forsake automation, only
to use conditioned response to achieve
an automation.
and, remember this, it -is- these existing
conditions coupled with your motivational
overlords that would auto-respond the
theft and murder which would alleviate
covetous desire.
that is, it is -these- which would force
your hand to do the contentious deed.
while God does not use force
to keep your hands in your pockets.
God tells you that it is this attitude,
which -seems- the correct pathway to keep
you afloat, which, in fact, sinks you.
of course, it -seems- 'counterintuitive'
that giving yourself away will preserve
and perpetuate your existance, but God
maintains that the root cause of -your-
cessation -is- the covetous desire
to hoard all things to your self.
it folds you neatly inside of
a bubble from which you may
never escape.
and whether you remain in existance
or not matters -not- to anything but
you, the prisoner.
as you have become completely
anihilated to anything but
your self.
and so, while God may find you on
the floor, victim of your own hand,
and use this degradation to your benefit,
we do not suggest that God forced
you to the floor to bring you in
to God's own perfection.
-you- -can- -not- -be- automated.
because -you- are intended to be -like- God.
selfish desire is theft against God.
your life is a Gift from God
you make it a theft when you consider
the source as anything -but- God,
who has made it a Gift to you.
and you consider the source as another
when you seek to artificially perpetuate
this life through the ingenious tools
to manipulate the existing conditions
and the attitudes engendered by
your motivational overlords.
well, that's one way we see things.
Christ remains our
direct connection with
the eternal Spirit.
we know of no other.
you won't be able to co-opt any
of this and scratch Christ's name
out and put in the name your
favorite cultural totem/icon.
that's exactly what won't
work and will lead to your
own self defeat.
you can't strip yourself out
of slavery and then bring along
the objects of enslavement
as a security blanket.
-your- idols -won't- set you free.
Christ will.
Peter B.
wrote:
Did you write the story? Nope, so your definitions are invalid. There also
is no crime against humanity since it never happened, right? Yet you
persist it fighting myths and mythologies similar to Don Quixote, don't you
see the irony here?
> My point was that the word "love" would not apply to a character that
> committed genocide - infanticide - mass murder and many other crimes
> against humanity. THAT is why I said - that would depend on how you
> define the word "love".
>
You do not know enough of the story to make that kind of determination.
>>
>>> THe idea that murdering infants and children is "love" is simply a
>>> bastardization of the word.
>>>
>>> And anyone who would worship such a monster as "love" has no
>>> comprehension of what love is.
>>>
>>
>> You don't know that,
>
> Sure I do
>
> I am a father - and a foster father, a grandfather - and a great
> grandfather as well. I know what it means to love children. I do not
> consider DROWNING all of them to be an example of "love". IT does not
> agree with the definition of the word in any dictionary. ANd If you
> asked a million parents about it - I would believe that ALL SANE parents
> would agree with me.
>
So when all your kids are lying thieving murderers, bullies and rapists who
revile you and your word then your idea of love is to keep the nice little
buggers around to reek their havoc on humanity and foster contempt, hatred
and discord wherever they are? In the south dads or grandads would take
their kids out behind the barn and shoot them.
> THe idea that anyone would consider a story about a person wiping out
> the virtually the entire population of children - infants - and babies
> in a flood - to be an example of "love" fails to understand the word
> "love".
No, you do not understand the nature of sinful man run amok. For one thing
had they continued living there would have been no virgin around that
Christ could have been born through to save your life if you so chose.
So how many years have you been fighting myths?
Peter B.
wrote:
> Funny - that there is NO proof that the Jewish nation wandered in the
> desert - in fact - there is NOTHING to establish that they were in
> bondage to before that supposed time either. A whole nation would leave
> behind lots of refuse- yet it simply is not there.
Really? That statement right there is proof to me that you haven't a clue.
Every bit of it has been established.
Linda Lee
> ThomMadura wrote:
> > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > God made peppermint sticks,
> > What a fairy tale!!!!!
>
> the conclusion that concious interference patterns excited
> the material universe to appear from not being there is valid
> inasmuch as no accidental triggering mechanism may be cited
> and therefore purposeful action is required.
Atheists like ThomMadura are not logical enough to see that. According
to them, the billions or trillions of systems in this complex universe
just fell into place or somehow grew into place over time just like
magic.
They demand that God be conjured up like a genii and laid before them
to 'prove' His existence.
You cannot reason with someone that illogical.
Fred Thomas
> On Apr 23, 1:29 pm, Timothy Sutter<a202...@mail.com> wrote:
>> ThomMadura wrote:
>>> Timothy Sutter wrote:
>>>> God made peppermint sticks,
>>> What a fairy tale!!!!!
>>
>> the conclusion that concious interference patterns excited
>> the material universe to appear from not being there is valid
>> inasmuch as no accidental triggering mechanism may be cited
>> and therefore purposeful action is required.
>
>
> Atheists like ThomMadura are not logical enough to see that. According
> to them, the billions or trillions of systems in this complex universe
> just fell into place or somehow grew into place over time just like
> magic.
>
Oh.....the magic word.......like what the Christian god does?
> They demand that God be conjured up like a genii and laid before them
> to 'prove' His existence.
>
If you pray, you conjure.
> You cannot reason with someone that illogical.
What is illogical asking this god to show evidence of its/his existence?
Hell, that is how the Christian mythology grew, playing parlor tricks on
the uneducated and ignorant.
Fred Thomas
Not even a little. there is zero evidence.
Timothy Sutter
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > > God made peppermint sticks,
> > the conclusion that concious interference patterns excited
> > the material universe to appear from not being there is valid
> > inasmuch as no accidental triggering mechanism may be cited
> > and therefore purposeful action is required.
> Atheists like [-] are not logical enough to see that. According
> to them, the billions or trillions of systems in this complex universe
> just fell into place or somehow grew into place over time just like
> magic.
> They demand that God be conjured up like a genii and laid before them
> to 'prove' His existence.
> You cannot reason with someone that illogical.
i still look at some of your posts...
i have to admit that after a while, when it seems
as if a person is just a screaming meemie
i tend to not look at their posts.
ThomMadura
So - what YOU are saying is that "love" can include the killing of
babies and innocent infants and children - as well as people who had NO
responsibility for the event that they are being killed for
AS I noted - It depends on what is meant by the word "love"
The claim above is that god acts in LOVE
ANd the word "love" does not include those things I mentioned in the
dictionary definition.
There also
> is no crime against humanity since it never happened, right? Yet you
> persist it fighting myths and mythologies similar to Don Quixote, don't you
> see the irony here?
Again - we are talking about the actions IN THE STORY
>
>> My point was that the word "love" would not apply to a character that
>> committed genocide - infanticide - mass murder and many other crimes
>> against humanity. THAT is why I said - that would depend on how you
>> define the word "love".
>>
>
> You do not know enough of the story to make that kind of determination.
I actually went to the seminary and memorized the bible
Obviously you are the one with the deficiency here
>
>>>
>>>> THe idea that murdering infants and children is "love" is simply a
>>>> bastardization of the word.
>>>>
>>>> And anyone who would worship such a monster as "love" has no
>>>> comprehension of what love is.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You don't know that,
>>
>> Sure I do
>>
>> I am a father - and a foster father, a grandfather - and a great
>> grandfather as well. I know what it means to love children. I do not
>> consider DROWNING all of them to be an example of "love". IT does not
>> agree with the definition of the word in any dictionary. ANd If you
>> asked a million parents about it - I would believe that ALL SANE parents
>> would agree with me.
>>
>
> So when all your kids are lying thieving murderers,
Idiot - SNIP
No - YOU obviously cannot read and understand what I said
THE actions killed MANY INFANTS - BABIES - and innocent children TOO
young to have been responsible for their actions. THAT is an abhorrent
EVIL - period.
ANYONE who would even attempt to justify the killing of INNOCENTS -
clearly is too deluded to understand that there are children who are too
young to have done anything that would justify their murder
>
>> THe idea that anyone would consider a story about a person wiping out
>> the virtually the entire population of children - infants - and babies
>> in a flood - to be an example of "love" fails to understand the word
>> "love".
>
> No, you do not understand the nature of sinful man run amok.
Sorry - but the word sin is defined as an offense against a god - none
are proven to exist - YOU are making up more nonsense
However - It is clear that murder is a sin - as defined in the fairy
tale itself. SO - the god is sinful.
snip more nonsense
ThomMadura
NOPE
And I can support MY statement
Answers.com
"The entire enterprise of archeology consists in the analyzing of the
long-dead past. This carries with it the inescapable effort to study
what has partially eroded, and what has completely eroded. Evidence
always remains, and archeology is the very enacting of the skills to
detect such evidence.
We regularly detect dwellings from primitive man. These consist of a
handful of people. Maybe a dozen people in all. They typically have left
us no drawings, and no tools obvious to the untrained eye. There
previous presence is nevertheless unmistakable: Locations (proximity to
resources), altered objects (shifted boulders, preserved tree-stumps),
personal possessions (being human, even the frugal and poor caveman
could lose something), bones and burial grounds (did nobody die in the
wilderness?), fecal matter (you'd be surprised what content can
survive), forensic evidence (for example: elements that result from
combustion found concentrated in specific areas meaning controlled and
therefore artificial fire).
3 million traveling people would alter vegetation paths, compact the
ground to produce an instant primitive 'road', and all other anomalies
specific to such a large group, in addition to vastly multiplying the
typical pool of evidence used to discover a people. If they ever
stopped, their encampments would instantly alter the landscape in a
flurry of further evidence. It would be unmistakable.
Now consider the incredibly small area that constitutes the 'wilderness'
we are dealing with. Apparently they either traveled at a snail's pace
or they transversed the same area repeatedly (being "lost" after-all)
again, and again, for 40 years. In the first they are not so much
traveling as an enormous encampment (dozens of miles long and wide--many
hundreds of square miles) that slowly shifts forward by 108 ft a day. In
the second option they would be an incredibly long traveling group that
manages to constantly U-turn and trample the same area over and over and
over again: "...2.5 million people marching ten abreast would form a
line 150 miles long, without accounting for livestock [or traveling
gear, sleeping gear, tents, possessions of any kind!].[13]"
Answer:
No evidence of a 40 year wandering exist, not even latrines for 603, 550
soldiers (over 20 years of age) + their families"
THE fact is - there is NO record of the jews being in bondage to egypt
and the egyptians are tbe BEST documented ancient civilization
THERE is no mention of moses anywhere except in a religious fairy tale
book that was not written until about 450 BCE as well.
Peter B.
wrote:
> On 4/23/2011 8:21 PM, Peter B. wrote:
If I prove to you otherwise, then what?
Peter B.
wrote:
Only the author gets to define their myth or fable. No one can pronounce
judgment on fables, nor attribute anything of it to a non-existent deity.
>> There also
>> is no crime against humanity since it never happened, right? Yet you
>> persist it fighting myths and mythologies similar to Don Quixote, don't you
>> see the irony here?
>
> Again - we are talking about the actions IN THE STORY
>
It does not matter, it is not your story. You are fighting phantoms of the
mind. Are you not worried that some will think you need to see a shrink?
All this fuss about nothing? I makes no sense.
>>
>>> My point was that the word "love" would not apply to a character that
>>> committed genocide - infanticide - mass murder and many other crimes
>>> against humanity. THAT is why I said - that would depend on how you
>>> define the word "love".
>>>
>>
>> You do not know enough of the story to make that kind of determination.
>
> I actually went to the seminary and memorized the bible
>
> Obviously you are the one with the deficiency here
>
You never learned the meanings, the allegories. You didn't even recognize
the continuity of just one thread throughout the Bible. Memory? You
memorized it and do not see? Somehow I doubt your word.
>>
>>>>
>>>>> THe idea that murdering infants and children is "love" is simply a
>>>>> bastardization of the word.
>>>>>
>>>>> And anyone who would worship such a monster as "love" has no
>>>>> comprehension of what love is.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You don't know that,
>>>
>>> Sure I do
>>>
>>> I am a father - and a foster father, a grandfather - and a great
>>> grandfather as well. I know what it means to love children. I do not
>>> consider DROWNING all of them to be an example of "love". IT does not
>>> agree with the definition of the word in any dictionary. ANd If you
>>> asked a million parents about it - I would believe that ALL SANE parents
>>> would agree with me.
>>>
>>
>> So when all your kids are lying thieving murderers,
>
> Idiot - SNIP
>
> No - YOU obviously cannot read and understand what I said
>
> THE actions killed MANY INFANTS - BABIES - and innocent children TOO
> young to have been responsible for their actions. THAT is an abhorrent
> EVIL - period.
>
> ANYONE who would even attempt to justify the killing of INNOCENTS -
> clearly is too deluded to understand that there are children who are too
> young to have done anything that would justify their murder
>
Well to begin with, it is not your myth or fable. You, had you read it,
would have been able to describe why the "ogre" did as he did. You cannot.
You also appear the be severely limited in understanding the various
nationalities and their long standing hatred to other nations well over
five hundred years, and just how soon the hatred is passed on to their
children and in bred. I hate to see you lose your cool, but I know you have
not read the fables with the understanding that the author wrote into it.
>>
>>> THe idea that anyone would consider a story about a person wiping out
>>> the virtually the entire population of children - infants - and babies
>>> in a flood - to be an example of "love" fails to understand the word
>>> "love".
>>
>> No, you do not understand the nature of sinful man run amok.
>
> Sorry - but the word sin is defined as an offense against a god - none
> are proven to exist - YOU are making up more nonsense
>
> However - It is clear that murder is a sin - as defined in the fairy
> tale itself. SO - the god is sinful.
>
You do not understand the hypothesis of killing? and the differences
between in and murder? Shame that, seminary eh? I don't think so.
ThomMadura
Ah - if YOU could have - YOU would have
And you didn't because YOU cannot!
ThomMadura
Snip more nonsense
Nothing YOU said can justify the killing of innocent children - noting
that in the great flood - it was NOT a clash of different people in the
MYTH - the god was killing his supposedly chosen people. And trying to
call that "love" is simply outrageous nonsense.
AND that YOU are trying to come up with a way to justify the MURDERS of
innocent children and infants and babies - shows that YOU do not
understand what "love" is either
>
>>>
>>>> THe idea that anyone would consider a story about a person wiping out
>>>> the virtually the entire population of children - infants - and babies
>>>> in a flood - to be an example of "love" fails to understand the word
>>>> "love".
>>>
>>> No, you do not understand the nature of sinful man run amok.
>>
>> Sorry - but the word sin is defined as an offense against a god - none
>> are proven to exist - YOU are making up more nonsense
>>
>> However - It is clear that murder is a sin - as defined in the fairy
>> tale itself. SO - the god is sinful.
>>
> You do not understand the hypothesis of killing?
Sure I do
YOU do not understand the INNOCENCE of children
ANd YOU do not understand why the killing of innocent children is among
the worst evil that exists as well.
And the idea - that YOU can call that "love" shows YOU have no knowledge
of what LOVE is either
Timothy Sutter
reflected in God's own Word.
God is Breathing, eternally, God.
when the breathing Spirit moves forward
in some utterance, this Word brings
the Spirit in to a 'new place'
a 'new place' that comes in to being
simultaneously with the utterance.
before this beginning, God knows God
as the private inspiration of God.
before this beginning, Love is a
private matter known only in God.
one can suggest that The Word which is
always present in Spirit and with Spirit
summarily formulates an encapsulation
of God's own Spirit, and,
as God speaks
this unseen Word, that which was not seen,
becomes seen, and God is beginning to show
that which God has always known.
in this beginning, of material and
non-material structures, is seen the
evidence of the unseen Word
and, as
the unseen Word is made manifest,
so also, the Spirit is realized
in this 'new place'
a replication of Structure
in a 'new' structure
strange is the singular declaration
made by God and conceived in
the human Mary,
is
different from the multiple
declarations made by God which
resulted in the material universe.
which is to say: the material universe
is brought forth in discrete stages,
whereas
Jesus,
that ultimate manifestation of The Word,
came about in one complete declaration.
one minor detail;
there is first, a declaration which
results in the conception in Mary,
and later, two declarations
of support for the human
being so formed,
which is to say, the thunder
from the blue which states;
"this is My Son in whom
i am well pleased"
and then;
"this is My Son, listen to Him"
and then, Jesus is -declared-
"first born from the dead"
but each time here,
it's stamping the same
general remark upon
the human race.
a remark of God's own completeness and
Holiness upon a material creation that
was made to stand apart from God, suffered
paling anguish in comparison to God, and
is redeemed to a station of Unity in God.
Timothy Sutter
carries an exacting image of God's own presence,
then, the multiple declarations made in bringing
forth the material universe, each resemble
particular manifestations of Theistic attribution,
whereas, that singular declaration which
conceives Christ, is the Spirit made Word
made material.
God has taken hold of this 'new place' and
the multiple manifestations all reside as One.
The Word made manifest is God,
but, a summed duplication of God is not God,
this drama serves first to demonstrate
with crystal clarity that God is God
and there can be no other God.
while God knew that God's own Spirit
would be presented with undeniable
clarity in God's own Word,
God can also be aware that any summation
of all Theistic attribution would remain
short of the Fullness of Deity in Love,
but, any lack of recognition of God's
Ultimate Preeminence in All
found in any summed
duplication of God's attributes must
be met with the strictest Judgement
until such time as God's own Mercy
is to be correspondingly bestowed.
to be 'not God' is not a crime.
to be 'not God' and not comprehend,
must be treated as a crime.
such chastizement is unutterably profound
subsequently, the removal of all blot is
Joy unspeakable and full of Glory.
Timothy Sutter
founded in that Love which human beings
aspire to comprehend.
God spins out a governing authority
as independant Beings.
before we examine the purpose to which
these independant Beings were spun out,
we would consider that in spinning out
these structural elements as independant
characteristics, these elements first take
on the attribute of 'not God' inasmuch as
they become as creations, and therefore,
God must redeem these structural elements,
themselves, in to full unity with God.
what could be considered strange, is that
any of these God breathed characteristics
could turn around, and view God as subject
to -it's- authority.
so, now, looking at this view, we can
easily see a potential for God's own
creation to turn on God and convince
itself that God belongs in
-its- dominion.
the Creator being ruled by a creation.
such authority as God already possesses
in God's own Perfect Will in Love.
God acts according to God's
own Will founded in Love.
such a turnaround could found a Selfish
elevation which would nullify ·that·
creation's claim to Love, the defining
characteristic of God.
should such a turnaround occur, its reckoning
as a potential hazzard would already have been
recognized, but still, it will remain as a
controversy in any creation that would desire
to subjugate that perfect Will of God.
in so doing,
·that· creation stymies its own freedom.
in so doing,
·that· creation distorts it's
view of Self to deny that
perfect Will of God.
in so doing,
·that· creation captures itself in a snare.
to aspire to God by denying that to which it aspires
it must deny it's own God breathed characteristics
and distort it's own view of it's own authority.
meanwhile, God is still God and only Loves.
[yes, God's disdain -for- hatred is because
it doesn't -match- God's Love]
[a subtle distinction]
but, ·that· unruly ruler has fallen headlong
in to a morass of irrational justifications.
whereas, ideally it would have it's
independant will in submission to
the unity of God's perfect
Will in Love,
it now has two ·competing· wills
it has birthed an indecisive
competition with it·self which
it also translates into an
adversarial position against
God, its Creator.
Self destruction is immenent
freeze it there for a while...
Timothy Sutter
> founded in that Love which human beings
> aspire to comprehend.
we could call this True autonomy.
behaving independantly according to personal will,
coupled with designs only to carry those admirable,
harmless and benevolent actions borne out of Love.
as God grants autonomy to its creations, we would
not consider it harmless and benevolent to allow
any creation to fixate on its own attributes
to the point of self destructive idolatry.
and so, should such a situation arise, during the
subsequent course of extracting such a creation
from it's self induced strugglings, if God appears
to 'smite' that creation with harsh criticisms,
we may still conclude that these criticisms are
borne out of an admirable Love.
even if that criticism involves removal
of autonomy and exacting demonstrations
of shortfall.
so, we should conclude that God's meting
out Justice is itself borne out of Love
and alone accomplishes the most Merciful ends.
it is not that God's work is purposefully 'booby-trapped'
but it is as if, in spinning out autonomous figures,
God stands at the door when those autonomous figures
seek an immediate return to the domain of God,
and now, God at the door represents a stumbling stone.
there is no way around God at the door,
because God is the door, and the desire
towards True autonomy is all pervasive.
there is this fine line tripwire which
is simply inherent in the situation.
in God as perfect Unity in Love the good
of the neighbor is exactly the good of God,
but, as God spins out these autonomous figures,
these new creatures must confront the motivating
forces towards True autonomy coupled with the
overriding necessity to cede 'all others' their
own personal autonomy.
and so, when these newly spun autonomous figures
are able to see their own good in and as the good
of all others, they succeed, but as any see their
own personal good as of primary and even sole
importance, they fall short.
and i mean, fall headlong over the stumbling stone.
and so, what may seem to us as
unbearably harsh chastizements,
is simply God falling with the stumbler,
and being there to lift 'it' back up
in newness of Life.
God never pushed it down, it fell.
and God alone can make it rise again.
Timothy Sutter
can compare 'you' against God's own
exacting nature so as to assess
your emulation.
will you trust God?
if God tells you that you can properly
emulate God's nature, will you believe
and trust God to carry through
to the end, this design?
when can God trust you to
carry out your own will?
from the onset, your understanding
of God's nature is limited by;
'there's something i don't know'
God knows what motivates you and how you operate.
God knows exactly who and what you can be.
you don't know yourself nearly as well.
now, as you can muse to yourself,
'how -would- God behave in my situation'
God can look at you and know to a certainty
how your intent and behavior aligns with
God's own Love.
what we would like is for this hypothetical
self assessment to be transformed in to God's
own emulation, practically applied to your
own circumstance.
from your own corruptible awareness
towards God's perfecting awareness.
you shall become who God knows.
which is to suggest that God implants
and verifies an emulation of God's own
knowledgeable presence in to your
unique circumstance.
but, your own knowledgeable self assessment
represents a permeable barrier through which
God must be continually invited and welcomed.
which is to suggest that you must use your
willingness to allow God to write this
emulation upon your consciousness.
you can block God out by failing to trust God
and this failure of trust emanates from your
own self assessment.
and...
Timothy Sutter
> can compare 'you' against God's own
> exacting nature so as to assess
> your emulation.
> which is to suggest that God implants
> and verifies an emulation of God's own
> knowledgeable presence in to your
> unique circumstance.
while yet alive,
you admit to your death
and petition God for relief.
God will breathe life into your presence.
God will begin to lead you in to your own life.
you comprehend God walking in your life and
then you emulate God's presence in your life.
as you favorably respond to God's overshadowing
of your conscious understanding, you manufacture
behavior in accordance with this template.
as God leads you into this life of yours,
God will verify good and acceptible branching
and clip and prune away any fruitless offshoots.
you see the growth,
you eat the growth,
you become the growth.
ideally, some point should arise when
your comprehension of good and acceptible
growth is such that you can encourage its
multiplication and carefully trim away
any factors which may impede flourishing.
and then you will be emulating God's
knowledgeable presence in your life.
you will be verifying your own purposeful actions
against your own good experience of having walked
in accordance with God's own overshadowing presence.
now, you have a beginning in which you can firmly stand.
that which appeared as an end in itself is now
become your staging platform upon which you may
construct a superstructure that will resist the tides.
thank you, Jesus.
[lest i forget]
[not that i ever could
forget]
Timothy Sutter
how could you emulate something that
resides within unapproachable light?
Jesus, that Glorified Image of God, stands
between you and the unapproachable light
and gives you something to comprehend.
veil upon veil
and so, you 'see' a shadow
of Christ in your life.
and coming up behind you,
God is torching a presence
that casts a shadow of you
against the shadow of Christ.
veil upon veil
and now you can reasonably comprehend
how far you are away, and to what heights
you may aspire, all without overwhelming
you in a sea of unspeakable majesties.
veil upon veil
filters patters comprehension
just remember...
your reality is filtered
you live in a world of comparisons
the filters to God would
remain imprenetrable if God
did not make a way to peer through,
and Jesus is -our- 'peer'
ThomMadura
> see, God is already perfectly
> reflected in God's own Word.
When YOU can prove you have ANY word that YOU can PROVE originated from
a god - by all means alert the media - yours will be the first
SO far - the only things we know about gods were ALL written completely
and provably by Humans.
Timothy Sutter
> > see, God is already perfectly
> > reflected in God's own Word.
ThomMadura wrote:
> When YOU can prove you have ANY word that YOU can PROVE originated from
> a god - by all means alert the media - yours will be the first
there's lots of =media= that already have the same evidence that i have.
i don't have to wait for =YOU= and =YOUR= favorite outlet.
Peter B.
wrote:
I already told you I could, but as I suspected I just got a troll response
Peter B.
wrote:
Snip more nonsense
>
> Nothing YOU said can justify the killing of innocent children - noting
> that in the great flood - it was NOT a clash of different people in the
> MYTH - the god was killing his supposedly chosen people. And trying to
> call that "love" is simply outrageous nonsense.
>
> AND that YOU are trying to come up with a way to justify the MURDERS of
> innocent children and infants and babies - shows that YOU do not
> understand what "love" is either
Nothing you said showed anyone killed. It is pointless to argue with a
troll who lives in myths that never followed the story line. The least you
could do is read the book though and then go back and study it before
making vain accusations.
ThomMadura
> in likeness as a for instance;
>
> how could you emulate something that
> resides within unapproachable light?
>
> Jesus, that Glorified Image of God, stands
> between you and the unapproachable light
> and gives you something to comprehend.
Ah - Making up another unprovable Fairy tale to add the other ones
Nice touch - meaningless nonsense over meaningless nonsense
ThomMadura
Sorry - I did not ask for evidence - I asked for PROOF
ANd YOU do not have a singe piece of PROOF
No supernatural god is proven to exist - and never has been.
ThomMadura
HAHA - YOU are the liar here - IF you could YOU would have done it
already for everyone - not just me
TYPICAL theist
WHen asked for proof of their statements - theists like YOU do one or
more of three things
1 - THEy attack the questioner - as YOU just did
2 - THEY attack the question
3 - THEY change the subject
But no matter how much PROOF they claim they have - they never provide a
single proven piece of it.
THAT is because NO supernatural god is proven to exist - and never has been.
ThomMadura
> On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 12:14:58 -0400, ThomMadura<Tomm...@optonline.net>
> wrote:
>
> Snip more nonsense
>>
>> Nothing YOU said can justify the killing of innocent children - noting
>> that in the great flood - it was NOT a clash of different people in the
>> MYTH - the god was killing his supposedly chosen people. And trying to
>> call that "love" is simply outrageous nonsense.
>>
>> AND that YOU are trying to come up with a way to justify the MURDERS of
>> innocent children and infants and babies - shows that YOU do not
>> understand what "love" is either
>
>
I note you failed to address the statement that the word "love" does not
include the idea of killing innocent children and babies.
WE were not addressing that the bible is a bunch of fairy tales - we
were discussing what the word "love" included.
THe original claim was about the fictional god's "love"
I said that it depends on what YOU consider the definition of the word
"love" to be. IF you includes the killing of innocent children and
babies - as love - YOU are bastardizing the word.
IN the bible fairy tale - which is what we are talking about - the god
was indeed a murderer. He committed or ordered genocide- and infanticide
Numbers 31:17-18
"Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every
woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women
children that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for
yourselves".
Samuel 15:3
"Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do
not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and
sheep, camel and donkey."
Psalm 137:8-9
"O daughter of Babylon, you devastator! Happy shall
they be who pay you back what you have done to us! Happy shall they
be who take your little ones and dash them against the rock!"
He even gave directions on how to properly sell your daughter into
slavery (Exodus 21:)
Dash an enemies "little ones" against rocks and be HAPPY about it too!!
ANyone who would claim that this mass murdering character - who also
drowned millions in a flood - and killed untold more innocents in a
"passover" - is an example of "love" simply does NOT understand the what
the word "love" means.
seeker
[...]
> Nothing you said showed anyone killed. It is pointless to argue with a
> troll who lives in myths that never followed the story line.
Are you describing yourself?
Timothy Sutter
>
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> >> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> >>> see, God is already perfectly
> >>> reflected in God's own Word.
> > ThomMadura wrote:
> >> When YOU can prove you have ANY word that YOU can PROVE originated from
> >> a god - by all means alert the media - yours will be the first
> > there's lots of =media= that already have the same evidence that i have.
> > i don't have to wait for =YOU= and =YOUR= favorite outlet.
> Sorry -
yes, you are.
i have my proof, other people have their proof
you can get yours,
and then you won't be so sorry.
Timothy Sutter
> On 4/24/2011 12:44 PM, Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > in likeness as a for instance;
> >
> > how could you emulate something that
> > resides within unapproachable light?
> >
> > Jesus, that Glorified Image of God, stands
> > between you and the unapproachable light
> > and gives you something to comprehend.
> Ah -
> Nice touch -
yes, and on a side note;
show exactly why such things were commanded
and then try drawing some conclusions as to
why you feel that these reasons are not
proper in your estimation.
not, 'it's often said'
anyway, look in to this aspect as well.
the children of Israel, on their way to
the land of promise passed thru edomites
and moabites and were told not to touch
them at all, because they were given
a land for themself.
so, why must they kill the -giants-
who lived in the promised land?
-one- reason was that these -giants-
were not even of the same species of man,
and YHWH had a very good reason to
ban their existance.
---
2 Samuel 21:20
Yet again there was war at Gath, where there
was a man of great stature, who had six fingers
on each hand and six toes on each foot,
twenty-four in number; and he also
was born to the giant.
---
that is, they were part human and
part decendants of the nephilim.
the nephilim being the offspring of
the union of the 'daughters of men'
and the 'sons of God'.
and what was funny is, these giants
were much much overwhelming figures
to the much smaller Israelites.
here, look at these;
-----
Genesis 6:4
There were giants on the earth in those days,
and also afterward, when the sons of God came
in to the daughters of men and they bore
children to them. Those were the mighty
men who were of old, men of renown.
Numbers 13:33
There we saw the giants Hebrew[nephilim]
(the descendants of Anak came from the giants);
and we were like grasshoppers in our own sight,
and so we were in their sight."
Deuteronomy 2:11
They were also regarded as giants,[rephaim]
like the Anakim, but the Moabites call
them Emim[terrors].
Deuteronomy 3:11
"For only Og king of Bashan remained of the
remnant of the giants[rephaim]. Indeed his
bedstead was an iron bedstead. (Is it not
in Rabbah of the people of Ammon?) Nine cubits
is its length and four cubits its width,
according to the standard cubit.
Joshua 12:4
The other king was Og king of Bashan and
his territory, who was of the remnant of
the giants, who dwelt at Ashtaroth and at Edrei,
Joshua 13:12
all the kingdom of Og in Bashan, who reigned
in Ashtaroth and Edrei, who remained of the
remnant of the giants; for Moses had
defeated and cast out these.
-----
um, now, is it at all clear that these creatures
who were humanoid in appearance and yet 'giants'
were not entirely 'son of man'
but were the remnant of the nephilim
who were the offspring of a tresspass?
now, does YHWH have the right
to utterly ban such a people
seeing as how they were
not supposed to happen?
and remember, Mesiah must pass thru man,
and no conflicting nephilim nature
may be found in Messiah.
the midianite problem was different
as i described in the other thread.
God did not drive out the Moabites
and the Edomites who were known to practice
these things but were given a land of their own.
---
Numbers 22:7
So the elders of Moab and the elders of Midian departed
with the diviner's fee in their hand, and they came to
Balaam and spoke to him the words of Balak.
---
----
Deuteronomy 2:9
Then YHWH said to me, "Do not harass Moab,
nor contend with them in battle, for I will not
give you any of their land as a possession, because
I have given Ar to the descendants of Lot as a possession."'
----
look, Moab practices divination and yet Moses
claims that YHWH told him not to harrass them.
therefore, this cannot be the exclusive reasoning.
there most certianly is such a mention inasmuch
as the people who were driven out -were- giants.
and not moabites and edomites.
i already cited those instances.
that's not relevant to who -was- driven out as
the Moabites who YHWH told to leave alone were
practicing some of these same detestable things
as described above and so, this could not
have been the sole reason.
that is, the Moabites who were along the way
to the promised land were not killed, and yet,
they were not living according to the law.
and so, if it was just the practices which are
contrary to the law, in and of themselves, that
was the dominant reasoning being the expulsions,
then YHWH would have instructed the Israelites
to kill the Moabites, but YHWH did no such thing.
> YHWH could have banned their existence before they
> came into existence, right?
evidently not, as these Principalites left their
assigned space and tresspassed in among God's
domain of man. see Jude.
---
Jude 1:6
And the angels who did not keep their proper domain,
but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting
chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day;
---
but you do see that there were
'giants' in the land
because they -tresspassed- and as such was not
an intended purpose of God but a criminal
act by those who tresspassed.
no logical sticking point there.
you can't suggest that YHWH placed
this desire to tresspass within them.
they took it upon themselves to tresspass,
and that's -why- it is a criminal tresspass.
the only people pressed out were these raphaim or giants.
and the Moabites were left alon because they were not giants.
well, if you'll look at why Noah found
favor aside from his being a nice guy,
---
Genesis 6:8-9
But Noah found grace in the eyes of YHWH.
This is the genealogy of Noah. Noah was
a just man, perfect in his generations.
Noah walked with God.
Genesis 9:12
And God said: "This is the sign of the covenant
which I make between Me and you, and every living
creature that is with you, for perpetual generations:
---
found grace is immediately
associated with his geneology.
same word "generations"
and is taken to mean that thing from which
Noah was generated and not just a group
of contemporaries.
just like Mary, Noah found grace and
was 'perfect in his generations'
i.e. no nephilim.
---
Luke 1:30
Then the angel said to her,
"Do not be afraid, Mary, for
you have found favor with God.
---
if you compare this with Noah, part of why
she found favor was that her generations
were perfect, like Noahs. and she had a
genealogy that went back to square one
thru accepted clean generations.
read the
Midianite statement in the other post.
here's some of that now;
----
speaking of the midianites;
and so, your only problem now is,
"isn't it terrible how YHWH orders Israel
to carry out this death sentence on
an entire people?"
you can't join the two issues
together, slavery and warfare.
-not- in this case.
not warfare -for- to get slaves.
but first, in relation to this particular issue;
---
Numbers 31:28-47:
---
the attack on the midianites was not ordered because
the midianites were some sort of natural enemy to
Israel because Moses himself had a midianite
wife who bore him a son named Gershom.
in fact, Moses was living with the
Midianites when he saw the burning bush.
if you look, there was a "plague" among the
people of Israel caused by the activities
of these so-called "midianites"
the famous "Baal-Peor" "Lord of the Gap" incident.
a "plague" that had become, apparently,
rampant among those people, and so, in
this case, YHWH ordered Moses to carry
out a 'retribution' against these people
because they had become intolerably unclean.
of note, is that those who were spared were
women who had not known a man intimately as
if to suggest that this "plague" may have
been sexually transmissable.
they were just a danger to
themselves and to the Israelites.
but they were -not- the objects
of slave conquests.
at that time, there was simply no possible
cure for this thing and it was the only possible
measure so as to ensure that this plague would
not render Israel entirely unuseful as
the vessel for the coming Messiah.
anyway, -after- Messiah came and did his thing,
people may be resurrected to newness of life anyway,
so, from YHWH's persepective, this cleansing had
to be done, and YHWH owns the life anyway.
there -was- no possible cure other than the ban.
YHWH had no contract with these people so as to
offer any remediation efforts, and this "plague"
was spreading to Israel, and presenting a mortal danger.
this basically separates out the aspect
of warfare to -get- slaves as is regarded
in your problem here.
and from YHWH's perspective, all souls are
YHWH's domain and so, the ordering of such
a ban or execution of judgement is
at YHWH's discretion.
no one has ever said that you
should take the law into
your own hands.
anyway, Jesus cures lepers so, all in good time.
but look;
---
Deuteronomy 23:17
No Israelite man or woman is
to become a shrine prostitute.
1 Kings 14:24
There were even male shrine prostitutes in the land;
the people engaged in all the detestable practices
of the nations YHWH had driven out before the Israelites.
1 Kings 15:12
He expelled the male shrine prostitutes from the
land and got rid of all the idols his fathers had made.
---
see how some of these "detestable"
religious practices were of a sexual nature
and that these sexual encounters had the
chance of spreading diseases amongst the people?
i mean, you would have many men coming into
a shrine where a few shrine prostitutes were found
and chances are, multiple encounters were the norm.
and so, the spread of disease was
not only probable but very likely.
not only was this "idolatry",
but unsafe and unclean.
this "shrine prostitution" thing
was -not- just some benevolent
alternative religious custom.
you can see now, with your micrscopes
and your hospital beds that sexually
transmissable diseases are ...well, rather deadly.
and here you have a situation where men
are encouraging each other to enter into
a shrine prostitute over and over again
and with multiple shared partnerings.
at the time, there was no other
alternative but to -ban- the people
doing this entirely.
just one last little bit,
just remember the midianites
were not enemies of Israel,
so, while one could wonder how
they'd have found 32000 women who
had not yet had sexual relations,
the midianites weren't the worst
of the worst of the human population
at that time, and may have only begun
dabbling in things like cult prostitution,
and so, these "plagues" had not completely
overtaken the midianites.
but people like, say "Amalek"
they even had sex with small children,
animals and each other and given the
propensity for cult shrine prostitution,
you have a situation where newborns have
syphilus, and a wide range of deleterious agents.
they were going to die anyway.
i mean, these were physically filthy people.
endemic pandemic epidemic ubiquidemic....
but Israel was the vessel for Messiah.
they had to remain clean so some clean
person like Mary -could- be found
to birth the Messiah.
-not- just "spiritually" but physically as well.
and shrine prostitution was
just a filthy filthy practice.
disease agents would be spread ***everywhere***
go back to your laboratories,
i welcome you to do so.
and pray to Jesus
in whom life resides.
thank God for Mary.
ThomMadura
No -YOU have no proof
YOU have your beliefs - as do the muslims and the hindu - and many other
religions
If you had proof - we would ALL know about it
THAT the majority of the worlds population does NOT accept YOUR religion
alone indicates that you have NOTHING that even approaches PROOF
ThomMadura
> ThomMadura wrote:
>
>> On 4/24/2011 12:44 PM, Timothy Sutter wrote:
>>> in likeness as a for instance;
>>>
>>> how could you emulate something that
>>> resides within unapproachable light?
>>>
>>> Jesus, that Glorified Image of God, stands
>>> between you and the unapproachable light
>>> and gives you something to comprehend.
AS noted - I do not accept the bible as anything MORE than a compilation
of your beliefs -= and any attempt to use it to prove a point about your
religion is simply the nonsense of circular reasoning.
SO - Until YOU can provide PROOF of that image you claim - the
comprehension is that it is ALL a FAIRY TALE made up by humans
ANd you are no different that Frank Church when he replied to Viriginia-
about Santa Claus.
WHile he said many nice things - he actually LIED.
Timothy Sutter
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > ThomMadura wrote:
> >> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> >>> in likeness as a for instance;
> >>> how could you emulate something that
> >>> resides within unapproachable light?
> >>> Jesus, that Glorified Image of God, stands
> >>> between you and the unapproachable light
> >>> and gives you something to comprehend.
> AS noted - I do not accept the bible as anything MORE<...>
fine, it's not your time.
we can't stop the merry-go-round just cuz one kid, YOU,
ran up on it, skinned its little knee and exclaimed;
"there is no God, and besides, God is mean"
go -back- to door 11, and see if you can get a ticket
and wait for your time to get back on the ride.
but i won't be shutting the ride down just cuz -you- had a mis-hap.
why? cuz it's not -my- ride -to- shut down.
it's a perfectly safe ride.
i got on and i'm not all that -special-...
i just grabbed on to Jesus' hand at the right time...
=you= made the mistake. -you- let go...
aside from this, your unlearned opinions about the matter
are wholly irrelevant to me and a whole lot of other people.
ok chumley?
Timothy Sutter
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > ThomMadura wrote:
> >> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> >>>> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> >>>>> see, God is already perfectly
> >>>>> reflected in God's own Word.
> >>> ThomMadura wrote:
> >>>> When YOU can prove you have ANY word that YOU can PROVE originated from
> >>>> a god - by all means alert the media - yours will be the first
> >>> there's lots of =media= that already have the same evidence that i have.
> >>> i don't have to wait for =YOU= and =YOUR= favorite outlet.
> >> Sorry -
> > yes, you are.
> > i have my proof, other people have their proof
> No -YOU have no proof
i have my proof.
you can still get your proof.
you stand in your own way...