show Mercy
Timothy Sutter
> but that's just physical
> maybe it relates somehow to a 'higher' way
> but, i have it nonetheless.
> > i would suppose that the area/location
> > is on any human body and you could call
> > that whatever you like, but it can become
> > underdeveloped to the point of atrophy.
> > and then there's the 'diaphragm'
> > the diaphragm and 'chi'
> > are by nature,
> > closely related.
>> but that would be the 'lower' abdomen
>> or mid abdomen
>> so why it it mentioned?
>> cuz i felt like it.
> i got a body too yuh know.
i'm not just some tentacled head
in a jar under the desert.
so, if you look at that stuff, 'chi'
and some of it's entailments,
like looking it up in the dictionary,
it claims that 'chi' concerns itself
with some sort of 'balance' of elements
so as to increase your harmonious
disposition with -nature-.
that being said,
if we go directly to the conclusion,
and look at "Life and Death"
one may ask themselves how -they-
would go about balancing 'life and death'.
in some respects it would seem that the very
best anyone could do is to flap their arms
as they fall into the grand canyon.
until and unless you even identify that
which -is- "Life" you cannot possibly
'balance' the predisposition towards death.
i mean, you could take cold showers and
hot baths or lay in a lukewarm body
temperature environment, and things
of this nature, and find that none
of these -increase- the balance of
'life' with respect to 'death'
so, you eat food that tingles all four
sensory receptors on your toungue.
that may be thrilling and 'taste' nice,
but it does nothing to -increase- your
balance of 'life' with respect to 'death'
and you take up with Renfield and start eating
live bugs so as to, you suppose, take their
'life force' directly into your being and
thereby -increase- your own 'lifeforce'
and find that this is a meaningless gesture
in pseudo-fanaticism to an idol of the 'Undead'.
because these bug's 'lifeforce' is not
transferable to you no matter -when-
you ingest them, before or after -they-
have ceased to carry it.
meaning, so, you eat a live bug,
an it dies while you are eating it,
just because it dies in -your- mouth,
doesn't mean that the bug's 'lifeforce'
will transfer to -you-, and it's just
as if you drank a protein drink.
just 'lifeless chemicals'
no increase in the 'balance' of your 'lifeforce'
so, you start flapping your arms.
good, that's nice, flapping yur arms is good,
-but- flapping your arms does not stop the falling.
so, that would seem hopeless,
and, we're right back at;
"eat and drink, for tomorrow we die"
but you still want to live.
so, where is this "Life"?
people would go halfway across
the earth to find fountains
of living waters.
little ever being able to realize that
these 'living waters' may be no further
than your own backyard,
but the -distance- between you and "Life"
is to be surmounted in our own conscious
agreement with "Life" itself and finding
that "Life" itself has a consciousness
all its own.
so, how do we reason with "Life"?
when we suggest that Jesus Christ is
"The Way, The Truth, and The Life"
we may begin to see
this "Life" as comprehensible
and our Hope is renewed.
and as -this- Hope begins to flood over
our conscious awareness, we get our
first taste of "Life" as if from
The Source of All things.
but, what we will begin to come to comprehend
is that -this- "Life" has _no_ 'death' as counterpart.
and so, as i meantioned in another place,
it begins to constitute itself as a radical
re-assessment of "Life" itself.
and this we can seek from no -other-
but only from The Source of The All.
and that Source is Jesus Christ.
Jesus Christ -is- the chi and beyond
Jesus Christ -is- the culmination of
the perfectability of the Saints.
in Christ, we are -not- a
'balance' of 'yes and no'
but only Yes.
for, in Christ, -All- is -Good-
and outside of Christ, there remains only
the fast approaching appointment with
destination 'potential energy well.'
it is true, you cannot reach
this by flapping you arms
but if you raise your arms, Christ
is willing to reach for you and
pull you up.
you -will- see benefit,
in this life
and in
Life to come.
now, spit those bugs out of your mouth.
there's more...
of course.
and the long and short of -this- is, that;
it leads to pessimism
which leads to cynicism
which leads to the
"whatever i can get away with"
mentallity
which leads to a
-perpetual- state of War
and that ain't 'harmony'
so, we -must- be looking for something -higher-...
so, seeking a harmony with nature leads to War?
sounds strange, but, we forget who we are...
still sounds strange, but look at it again;
seek harmony with nature to perpetuate life
see endless failures in perpetuating life
develop pessimistic attitude about life
decide life is short and immediate
gratifications are all we can accomplish
fully develop the breeding of Cynicism
and now,
"whatever i can get away with"
-is- your approach to 'harmony with nature'
and this -is- a state of perpetual conflict.
and this is where the 'higher way'
can be our -only- Savior.
...more details...
people who develop this will not
come right out and say to you;
"harmony is war"
because it gives their hand away.
but do not -fear- it
because -fear- is a most potent weapon inasmuch
as it places -you- at work against your own self.
just remember, -that- 'way' is -not- 'freedom'
inevitably, it is a tailspin
they -need- -you-
show Mercy
just see;
"harmony is war"
is a -trap-
do not fall into it.
as some are -in- the trap already
and would pull you -in- with them.
because look, it has what -seems- like benefits,
you are -always- in a state of war
so, when someone approaches you with difficulties,
you are not immediately taken aback and stumbling
over your own -fears-.
for you, war -is- 'harmony'
so, you are -never- 'caught off guard'
or unsuspecting or unawares.
but, in -your- 'ideal' state,
everyone else would behave the same 'way'
so, -no one- is out -looking for- conflict
because -everyone- is -always-
prepared for just that.
but this remains the 'lower way'
in that even the damping out of
as much conflict as is possible
will -not- _increase_ your ultimate balance
of 'life' so as to overcome the weight of -death-
and so, the pull towards complacency
and pessimism and cynicism maintains
a stranglehold.
you simply manage to flap your
arms as you fall into the chasm.
and...
Timothy Sutter
remember James and how he
describes a 'wisdom' that is 'earthly'.
James 3:13-18
and, Paul and how he warns that you not
be lead astray by vain philosophies of men.
Collosians 2:7-8
==
James 3:13-18
Who is wise and understanding among you?
Let him show by good conduct that his works
are done in the meekness of wisdom. But if you
have bitter envy and self-seeking in your hearts,
do not boast and lie against the truth. This wisdom
does not descend from above, but is earthly,
sensual, demonic. For where envy and self-seeking
exist, confusion and every evil thing are there.
But the wisdom that is from above is first pure,
then peaceable, gentle, willing to yield, full of mercy
and good fruits, without partiality and without hypocrisy.
Now the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace
by those who make peace.
Colossians 2:7-8
rooted and built up in Him and established in the faith,
as you have been taught, abounding in it with thanksgiving.
Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and
empty deceit, according to the tradition of men,
according to the basic principles of the world,
and not according to Christ.
==
James says there is a 'wisdom' that comes from above
and a wisdom from below and Paul says don't be lead
astray by the 'wisdom' that comes from below.
the "philosopher god" is described as being
'omniscient' and so, it may be suggested that
no real 'free will' is possible inasmuch as 'god'
knows all things in advance and therefore, a man,
has no real choice in any matter.
this suggests that a man has no will of his own
because when he acts, he acts according to
'god's will' no matter what he does.
this describes a 'god' who is at war with itself.
one problem is that this must contend that
'god' thinks as the carnal mind of man.
and has absolute foreknowledge of all of man's
hearsays, rumors, misunderstandings and outright lies.
it would forced to suggest that 'god' is responsible
for a man's own misunderestandings and outright lies.
and then you have a 'god' who, essentially is
'omniscient' -and- misunderstands -itself- inasmuch
as all actions of the man are predetermined.
which thing must therefore be excluded
as contradictory and unreasonable.
so, when you suggect that 'God' is 'omniscient'
this 'omniscience' must be tempered
-with- a man's own 'free will'
for starters, this 'god' is -not- the
God described in the bible literature.
but that, it was some 'philosophers' who
who were attempting to come to terms
with the 'christian ethos'
who brought -their- prefabricated 'reasoned'
ideas -about- a 'god' with them and tried to
lay -that- stencil overtop of the God as
described in the pages of the bible.
most of 'them' were already aware that
these ideas -about- a 'god' had many
unresolvable inconsistencies, and so,
it turns into a subtle attack on the God
described in the pages of the bible.
where this 'philosopher god', in whom such
inconsistencies lie, may be employed as a
levering device to denounce the God as
described in the pages of the bible.
so, 'they' describe the God of the bible as if it
-is- the 'philospher's god' and then proceed
to dismantle the God of the bible in the same
manner that the 'philosopher's god,
may be dismantled.
all without the unwary ever recognizing
that 'the philosopher's god' and the God
of the bible are not identical.
one is a human derivation based on
an incomplete knowledge base
and one is a veiled description of a Deity
which does not present itself for complete
inspection from within the confines of
'the natural' manifestation.
so, in part, some 'sectarian squabbles'
center around the mismatched overlay
of the humanly derived 'philosopher's god'
and an excerpted pattern of similarity
culled from the pages of the bible.
if you can be brought into the acceptance of the
'philosopher's god' through some analysis
of the pages of the bible, then it's all too easy
to rip into your understanding of the God of
the bible by ripping apart the 'philosopher's god'
same sort of thing applies to 'omnipotent'
the general format being;
omnipotent
"god must be able to do all things"
"making yes = no cannot be done"
therefore;
"there is no omnipotent being"
"there is no god"
1. 'god must be omnipotent to be god
2. this thing cannot be done because
it violates the logical structure of
it's own inception,
therefore,
no omnipotent being can exist.'
it's the second part that gets disguised
like;
"can god be god and not god at the same time?"
subsequently, the 'philosopher's god' becomes 'Nature'
and now, you should see that there is no choice,
just natural predisposition,
because "Nature" is impersonal and so is
unable to provide a choice in a man that
it does not have.
etc.
sometimes house cleaning is a good thing.
and if 'leavening' ends up in your 'doctrine'
is should be purged to as to deliver
the more 'pure' wisdom, if possible,
and such is possible.
i don't have to purge the philosopher's god'
because i never have fallen prey to it.
but some may.
and purging the leavening is a good thing.
> because "Nature" is impersonal and so is
> unable to provide a choice in a man that
> it does not have.
> sometimes house cleaning is a good thing.
> and if 'leavening' ends up in your 'doctrine'
> and purging the leavening is a good thing.
so, you get all this bit about 'change'
and 'constant flux' and 'situational ethics.'
the problem here is that it still leaves -you-
as a piece of silly putty which immediately adapts
to a given set of surroundings and so it is
the surroundings which dictate the -you- that is
appropriate for -them- and not -you- -ever-
being anything but an -image-
-of- those surroundings
more contradiction.
you fish out of water
and/or a little gerbil performing for circus treats.
-if- you blend in to this milieu/enVIromint correctly
you get three circus treats and you
think this means that you are then 'happy'
only to find that the circus treats are 'unsatisfying'
and again, you are unhappy.
and the -conditioning- has allowed
for the only -possible- outcome.
what might that be?
this has to be one of the
insertion pathways of the
leavening agents.
and these leavening agents make your
ginger bread house inhospitable to God.
driving you further apart,
and you have no -you-
to recognize -as-
yourself anymore.
a puffed up
hollowed out
cracker
that ain't you.
where did you go?
how did you disappear?
you saw yourself for a moment.
and that moment passed.
...
'the philosopher' knits a suit for 'god' and
hangs it on a line not seeming to care that
the suit he admires remains empty.
'the philosopher' has built a stadium
and invented a game in which he expects
'god' to play, and stands on the field,
concluding there is no God, because;
"He never shows up for the game"
sort of like;
‘We played the flute for you,
And you did not dance;
We mourned to you,
And you did not weep.’
it's not surprising that the -'philosopher's god'-
is dead, inasmuch as -it- never lived.
'it' falls under the weight of its own
'verbal ambiguities'
the 'phliosopher god'
-would- care about the 'rules'
if 'it' was -aware- of the 'rules'.
the philosopher god would say;
'ay, you mispelled my name'
'it's not 'phliosopher god'
it's 'p h i l o s o p h e r g o d'
and then the phliosopher would have to say;
'you can't care how i mispell yur name,
because i already said you can't
care about anything at all.
"so, you can't possibly be the True phliosopher god
because you -care- about how your name is spelled
i'll have to give you a new name, that's easier to spell
so, you won't care, when i mispells it."
"for example, i could call you
e.g. c i.e.
and see if that would make
you see it in other words.
only then you be grossly morphized into stone.
more to complain about, i guess."
"oops, i mean, i presume"
"oops, i mean i ....don't really know at all"
e.g.opci.te.
"now can you see it, oh phliospopher god?
oh, i forgot, you can't see anything.
not to worry, i can't see you either"
==
Psalm 71:4
Deliver me, O my God, out of the hand of the wicked,
Out of the hand of the unrighteous and leavened man.
Psalm 73:21
Thus my heart was grieved, And
I was leavened in my mind.
1 Corinthians 5:8
Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven,
nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness,
but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
1 Corinthians 14:20
Brethren, do not be children in understanding; however,
in malice be babes, but in understanding be mature.
Ephesians 4:31
Let all bitterness, wrath, anger, clamor,
and evil speaking be put away from you,
with all malice.
Colossians 3:8
But now you yourselves are to put off all these:
anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy language
out of your mouth.
Titus 3:3
For we ourselves were also once foolish, disobedient,
deceived, serving various lusts and pleasures, living
in malice and envy, hateful and hating one another.
1 Peter 2:1
Therefore, laying aside all malice, all deceit,
hypocrisy, envy, and all evil speaking,
==
Timothy Sutter
notions with them in a reading of the bible,
because these could cloud your understanding
and get you to see a thing that may not really
be there in the text and this would be an
intrusion by the puffed up carnal mind into
things that he has seen but does not understand
fully of himself and also one who may speak of
things he has not seen. Colossians 2:18
just take for example this
thing called 'omniscience'
-before- one looks at the pages of the bible
how can one establish that God is omniscient?
all man has to go on is that some
phenomenon called knowledge exists,
and that he has some smattering of it,
so, he questions whether
God may have 'all' knowledge.
what he should do next is see if
it is possible to -test- this hypothesis.
can man devise a test that will tell
him whether God is omniscient or not?
it doesn't appear to be probable because
man is not omniscient and so, lacks the
actual datum by which to compare God's
overall knowledge,
so, man cannot credibly test any
claim that God may be omiscient.
all you can really say is
that God -may- be omniscient,
but this surmise is not useful in building
a larger picture of God's own nature,
simply because it is untestable by man.
one should avoid assuming the conclusion.
here's a bit from Jeremiah;
==
Jeremiah 19:5
(they have also built the high places of Baal,
to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings
to Baal, which I did not command or speak,
nor did it come into My mind),
=
Jeremiah 32:35
And they built the high places of Baal which are
in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to cause their
sons and their daughters to pass through the fire
to Molech, which I did not command them, nor did
it come into My mind that they should
do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.’
==
see, and here is where the philosopher god proponents
will attack the God of the bible as -not- being 'god'
because this suggests that there were things that
man was doing that had not entered in to
the Mind of God, and so, not "omniscient"
even though they know full well that this
exhaustive "omniscience" that the philosopher god
is said to possess, -nullifies- it's
existance and a real actual being.
having said that;
now, picking up a bible and scouring through
it looking at verses which mention God's knowedge
base, should not be viewed through man's axiomatic
-assumption- that God =is= omniscient when in fact,
all man can say is that God -may- be omniscient.
and so, while we can conclude that God's
knowledge of God and the creation is
comprehensive,
we can also acknowledge that God can grant
the creation some very definite ability
to act on its own without all such action
being absolutely known before hand.
this is knowing all things that are known.
also, while we can acknowledge that
there may be options open to the creation,
we can just as easily say that God would
know what -could- be the outcome of all options.
so, you can easily see that God -could- say;
"if A then B
and
if C then D
where God knows both B and D
but where God has left the option
of A or C to the creation.
so this still shows that God can know
all possible outcomes without suggesting
that God forces a specific outcome.
when this concerns molecular machinery
that doesn't seem to operate by any
specific choice of its own, you
don't -have- to say that God configures
each snowflake each time one appears,
but you can if you like,
and when it concerns a man's optional
involvements, in his own destinations
we don't -have- to suggest that God
has preconfigured a man's life but
you can say this if you want to.
because certianly, you can dig up bible
verses that have a man's hand in his
own lot as effective in many ways.
==
2 Timothy 2:15,19,21
15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God,
a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly
dividing the word of truth.
19 Nevertheless the solid foundation of God stands,
having this seal: “The Lord knows those who are His,”
and, “Let everyone who names the name of Christ
depart from injustice.”
21 Therefore if anyone cleanses himself from the latter,
he will be a vessel for honor, sanctified and useful
for the Master, prepared for every good work.
==
==
2 Peter 1:5-10
For this very reason, make every effort to add
to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge;
and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control,
perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; and
to godliness, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly
kindness, love. For if you possess these qualities
in increasing measure, they will keep you from being
ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of
our Lord Jesus Christ. 9But if anyone does not have
them, he is nearsighted and blind, and has forgotten
that he has been cleansed from his past sins.
Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make
your calling and election sure. For if you do these
things, you will never fall, and you will receive
a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our
Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
==
i'd say that there would be a considerable amount
of conscious effort on the part of a christian
to conform to the will of God as outlined -to-
the christian -by- the Holy Spirit guidance.
etc