It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NTS Ransomed with the blood of Christ

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 1 2018 @ 01:30 AM
link   
a reply to: glend
The Rabbi's quesion implies that he is taking the Garden of Eden story very literally. Do you yourself take it as literally as that?

I treat "Eden" as a state of living in harmony with the will of God (which is what "not being in sin" means) and consequently getting "Life" in the true sense direct from God.

That state of affairs is fully restored in "the new Jerusalem" of Revelation, which is why the new Jerusalem is depicted as containing the Tree of Life.
The process of restoration begins in our present life, so we have partially returned to Eden already,





edit on 1-9-2018 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 1 2018 @ 01:38 AM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

Ouch DISRAELI, I feel like I was just spanked. Loved your answer.



posted on Sep, 1 2018 @ 02:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: KansasGirl

But how can that really be? We were created in God's image. Part of that is our independence, our free will. If we weren't free to make our own decisions, then we wouldn't be an imager of God.

The difference between my tentative descriptions of "image of God" and "sin" may be that the first is the ability to act consciously and independently of the world, and the second is taking that into independence of God. One is the capacity of separating ourselves, the other is actually doing it.
As our minds work at the moment, we find it very difficult to imagine acting independently and not acting independently of God. Perhaps the fact that our minds work like that can be taken as an explanation of what is meant by "original sin".
But I suggest that God is drawing us towards a state of affairs in which we align ourselves with his will voluntarily.



But ugh, it brings me back to this blood sacrifice thing. I may never understand it, though I want to!

I cover blood sacrifce in one of the threads of that Old Testament series.
My premise is that the only kind of offering God ever wanted was the self-offering. Paul is actually returning to that idea when he says "Make your bodies a living sacrifice" (Romans ch12 v1).
Jeremiah says (ch7 vv21-26) that God never asked for animal sacrifice at Sinai, and I believe him. What God asked for was obedience. That is, following the basic commandments, which are an expansion of "You shall love the Lord your God and your neighbour as yourself".
I believe that the practice of animal sacrifice was really picked up from the surrounding culture. It was what everybody did.

My argument is that animal sacrifice actually operates in the Old Testament period as a substitute for self-offering. The people are saying, in effect, "We understand that we owe you our lives. So here is A life as a token of that debt."
It was offered as an atonement for sin, but it could only be a token of the atonement that was really needed. if you read through the prophets, you will see God complaining angrily that the people have come to rely on sacrifice as a permanent substitute for the repentance that he is looking for.
The Epistle to the Hebrews sums it up very well. The sacrifices of the Old Testament covenant could never be an effective cleansing from sin, because they could not cleanse the conscience.

This brings us to the key point of the New Testament- Christ as a SELF-offering. Of course there will be a thread on that a little further down the line.



Your explanation of the theory that the ransom is paid to Satan- that makes sense to me! If we choose sin, we've chosen Satan in that moment and therefore he has a claim on us. But then the blood thing again: how does blood enable our purchase? What does Satan get, from that blood, that makes up for our removal from his realm?

No, that was Origen's theory. which Anselm and theology since Anselm has rejected.
My own argument in that second post is that the "payment" was not literally "received" by anybody at all. The main point of the Redemption metaphor is that God's people are released from a burden.


edit on 1-9-2018 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2018 @ 02:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: KansasGirl
But the blood; I don't see how sprinkling blood on the altar and other things in the holy place makes a person fit to be there, or no longer defiled, etc.

Supplementary to what I said above;
The Hebrew word for "atonement" means "a covering".
I think the conscious Hebew understanding of blood atonement, higher up in their minds than the explanation I've already given (which is about animal sacrifice in general), is that blood "covers" sin in the sense of concealing it from God's eyes, acting as a kind of mask. Or at least that God has promised that he will not notice sin if sacrificed blood is there to block his view.
This idea of concealing sin is what James and Peter are getting at when they say that love, not blood, "covers a multitude of sins".
So when the Hebrews carry or spinkle sacrificed blood, they believe they are using it as a shield to hide their sin from God's vision.


edit on 1-9-2018 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2018 @ 02:56 AM
link   

edit on 1-9-2018 by DISRAELI because: clicked quote instead of edit



posted on Sep, 1 2018 @ 03:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: KansasGirl
No one addresses the blood issue- why blood?

Blood means sacrificing one's life.
Why blood?
The penalty for treason is death. Sin is treason against God. Therefore the penalty for sin is death.


originally posted by: KansasGirl
Please read my first response in this thread if you haven't (this is addressed to everyone responding, not you specifically, Kets). The Levitical sacrificial system was for the purpose of MAKING ONE FIT TO OCCUPY SACRED SPACE. How does blood-placing blood on the altar and other temple objects- make a person fit to be in that space?

Please do not confused God's justice with ancient Hebrew's ritual.


originally posted by: KansasGirl
What is the blood doing, that placing it on objects makes one safe to be in that space?

It doesn't. The point of blood sacrifice is to redeem your own life, by using animal, in exchange for your treason against God.


originally posted by: KansasGirl
Blood must do something, since it's used in the OT and the NT, with Jesus's death.

It shows how deep your regret is, that you are willing to die for. "Without death, there is no forgiveness." Therefore you earn yourself forgiveness from God. You don't get that privilege from Human's court. Treason always sentence to death.


originally posted by: KansasGirl

It can't just be a replacement for life ("the life is in the blood" explanation), since the sacrifices in the OT were mainly made for a person being defiled by every day human activities: coming into contact with seminal fluid, coming into contact with blood (in fact, women had to make an offering every month after their periods, to be fit for sacred space again), touching a dead body, eating something unclean.....etc. how does blood fix those things?

Wrong. You have no idea the seriousness the Israelites and human in general have done to offend God, past and present. For example, worship idols..

Know this, there is no forgiveness for treason. Sin is treason against God. By right, sinners should be sentenced to death.

However, Let's examine what God said to Ezekial:
Ezekiel 18:27-32
27But if a wicked man turns from the wickedness he has committed and does what is just and right, he will save his life. 28Because he considered and turned from all the transgressions he had committed, he will surely live; he will not die.

29Yet the house of Israel says, ‘The way of the Lord is not just.’

Are My ways unjust, O house of Israel? Is it not your ways that are unjust?

30Therefore, O house of Israel, I will judge you, each according to his ways, declares the Lord GOD. Repent and turn from all your transgressions, so that your iniquity will not become your downfall. 31Cast away from yourselves all the transgressions you have committed, and fashion for yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. Why should you die, O house of Israel?

32For I take no pleasure in anyone’s death, declares the Lord GOD. So repent and live!

Listen to what God had said to Isaiah.
Isaiah 1:11
"What are your multiplied sacrifices to Me?" Says the LORD. "I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams And the fat of fed cattle; And I take no pleasure in the blood of bulls, lambs or goats.

What did Samuel said about sacrifice?
1 Samuel 15:22
Samuel said, "Has the LORD as much delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices As in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, And to heed than the fat of rams.

So there you go.

Don't worry about uncleanness due to women's period. God is holy. But he won't justify women's period as treason. After all, didn't God create woman anatomy in the first place? Why would God be offended with his own design? You are reading the Pharisee's nonsense too much. Those guys, in their days and primitive mentality, wanted to please God so much. So, they make their own law.




edit on 1-9-2018 by EasternShadow because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2018 @ 07:21 AM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI


Jeremiah says (ch7 vv21-26) that God never asked for animal sacrifice at Sinai, and I believe him. What God asked for was obedience.


Here's a better explanation for what God said and why...


Jeremiah 7:21-28. Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel — And let Israel hear when their God speaks — Put your burnt-offerings unto your sacrifices, and eat flesh — The burnt-offerings, after they were flayed, were to be consumed wholly upon the altar, Leviticus 1:9; whereas, in the sacrifices of the peace-offerings, only the fat was to be burned upon the altar; part of the remainder belonging to the priests, and the rest being the portion of the offerer, to be eaten with his friends in a kind of religious feast. But here the prophet tells the Jews that they may eat the flesh of their burnt-offerings as well as that of their peace-offerings; that he was equally regardless of the one and the other, and would have nothing to do with them; and that he would never accept offerings from people of so disobedient and refractory a disposition; that to be acceptable to him they must be presented with an humble and obedient mind.

“This leads plainly to the interpretation of the next verses, which are by no means to be taken separately, as if God had not required burnt-offerings and sacrifices at all; but that he did not insist so much upon them as on obedience to the commands of the moral law; or, at least, that the former derived all their efficacy from the latter.” See note on 1 Samuel 15:22. “Sacrifices,” says Dr. Waterland, on this passage, “which were but part of duty, are here opposed to entire and universal obedience. Now the thing which God required, and chiefly insisted upon, was universal righteousness, and not partial obedience, which is next to no obedience, because not performed upon a true principle of obedience.

God does not deny that he had required sacrifices: but he had primarily and principally required obedience, which included sacrifices and all other instances of duty as well as that: and he would not accept of such lame service as those sacrifices amounted to; for that was paying him part only in lieu of the whole. Or we may say, that sacrifices, the out-work, are here opposed to obeying God’s voice; that is, the shadow is opposed to the substance, apparent duty to real hypocrisy, and empty show to sincerity and truth. Sacrifices separate from true holiness, or from a sincere love of God, were not the service which God required; for hypocritical services are no services, but abominations in his sight: he expected, he demanded, religious devout sacrifices; while his people brought him only outside compliments, to flatter him; empty formalities, to affront and dishonour him. These were not the things which God spake of, or commanded: the sacrifices he spake of were pure sacrifices, to be offered up with a clean and upright heart. Those he required, and those only he would accept of as real duty and service.”


biblehub.com...



posted on Sep, 1 2018 @ 10:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: Deetermined



For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."


What if it means something else. That Jesus spent his life teaching his disciples how to earn the pearl of great price.

A: Atonement gives salvation without self sacrifice.
B: Demands self sacrifice (selling of all we have to buy the pearl of great price).

I think B.


No, with all due respect, a thousand times no, and you need to go back to school on that. You can't pay anything for salvation. The pearl of great price is the body of Christ, the church, Christ the merchant that gave everything for His bride. The analogy of the church being the pearl is, in fact, one of the most astounding metaphors in scripture.

Alright, I wasn't going to go there, but let's have the lesson, involving this common error Christ is that pearl.

Matthew 13:45 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a merchant man, seeking goodly pearls: 46 Who, when he had found one pearl of great price, went and sold all that he had, and bought it.

The usual interpretation that this parable deals with a merchant who's a lost sinner, seeking that pearl of salvation, and this is obviously wrong.

First, the sinner never takes the initiative, it is rather God who takes the initiative, Romans 3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. 12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. This merchant man cannot picture a lost man seeking God, rather just the opposite. Even Adam hid from God in the Garden of Eden, causing God to seek him. If you seek God, it is because He first sought you.

Then, there would be the presumption the sinner would have something with which to buy Christ with. In our flesh is no good thing! What would a lost sinner buy Christ with? We're not seeking Christ by nature, have nothing to buy Him with, and He's not for sale. It's blaspheme to say you can buy the Lord Jesus Christ, Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost. Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

So what is the pearl of great price? It is not Jesus as many think, but rather the church, and the merchant man is the Lord Jesus, who has purchased the church with His own blood.

The pearl is wrought in deep water, where a bit of dirt or grit imbeds itself in that living being beneath the ocean. You'll never find a darker place than inside an oyster, at the bottom of the sea. Then, the organism begins to cover that ugly dirt, that filthy thing, with layers of pearl, until something beautiful is growing and being made. A pearl is not like any other gem, is made from something living, and can't be divided like precious stones without destroying the pearl. The church goes from the grit of guilt to glory, layer by layer covering our sin with His glory, like a pearl, from the depths to heights, like a pearl being harvested. In the glory, we will shine forever. The church is taken from the depths of darkness to light, as a gem that absorbs and reflects light. So, we go from grit to glory, from depth to height, from darkness to light, start to finish, gradually, indivisibly, in the end one perfect pearl in the church, without spot or blemish.

The pearl was sought. When the merchant man found the pearl, he sold all he had and bought it, as the Lord Jesus did for us. We are precious and beautiful to the Lord, He "came to seek and save." He seeks through the Holy Spirit of God to our hearts, even through sorrow, seeks us through the scripture. God set His attention on us, not we on Him.

The pearl was bought with all the merchant man had, 2 Corinthians 8:9 For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich. When a man sells all he has, he's bankrupt at that point. Jesus Christ went to a manger, so we could go to a mansion, exchanged a crown of gold for a crown of thorns, glory for humiliation and horrible suffering. Why did Jesus do this? Because he was purchasing that pearl of great price. A holy God cannot look upon sin and only the damned in hell can begin to know the anguish, suffering, and utter midnight in the heart of Christ as He died for us, who died alone for us on Calvary.

The good news, God loves you and deeply desires you, Luke 19:10 For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost. The Lord Jesus is that Merchant Man, who purchased us as His pearl of great price, though we are sinners, purchased us at great cost. Psalms 45:11 So shall the king greatly desire thy beauty: for he is thy Lord; and worship thou him. Praise and worship that wonderful Lord Jesus!



posted on Sep, 1 2018 @ 11:02 AM
link   

In order for a testament/covenant/inheritance to take place, something or someone has to die.

Surely it would be the someone who wants to join with God.
If a drop of water wants to be one with the ocean..............the individual drop must die.


edit on 1-9-2018 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2018 @ 11:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: AutisticEvo

So it's not so much blood as the sacrifice, as something precious to you, something that once given cannot be got back.



Yes, the blood sacrifice involved offering something of great value, the best a person had, as an atonement for sin. Interesting to note, though, the animal sacrifices of the Old Testament saved nobody, by the time you get to the New Covenant, read Hebrews, we find it was only faith in God, trust in God, that saved anybody in the Old Testament. The animal sacrifices, as well as Isaac's aborted sacrifice as a test of faith, mind you God providing the sacrifice, noting the awesome prophetic wording of Genesis 22:8, "God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering," these prophesied Jesus Christ. The Old Testament is a shadow of Jesus Christ to come, as only He could pay for the sins of the world, since no sinful man could pay for anybody else, be that sacrifice, without blemish, the Old Testament foreshadows.

The Bible is Jesus Christ, cover to cover, in fact, Jesus the Word of God. Jehovah's Witnesses have a baby over this, but the Lord Jesus also the "I am" that spoke to Moses and gave Moses the commandments, John 1 clear, out of the gate, the Lord Jesus was in the beginning and the Creator, many other verses verifying His identity with God that interacted with man, the Word, how about that, which spoke to man of the Old Testament, but let us dispense with speaking of the Trinity, in a place where plain things of God are disputed.

In any event, the blood is about atonement, payment for sin, that Holy God demands, or God would not be holy, to give sin a pass, any sin. And only God Himself, in the form of Jesus Christ, could atone for anybody else's sin. Otherwise, a sinner, dying for sin, could hardly satisfy somebody else's penalty, as if not to mention only God, Himself, could set the terms of atonement, in the first place, in a world filled where each and every human creature, post the fall, is born into sinful flesh, from the curse, and concluded in sin, every man, woman and child, the latter that has reached a point of accountability and violated good conscience. Obviously, you don't set your own terms, standing before the judge, as a criminal. Well, God doesn't plea bargain.

As for this notion in the thread there's a payment made to the devil? God has to pay off Satan? Utterly ridiculous. It's Satanic types that make of Satan more than he is. True, Satan is a cosmic order punk, but one that winds up in the lake of fire, and still just a punk, in the face of Almighty God. And man, if we weren't such depraved idiots, could see this now, Isaiah 14:9-20. Pay close attention to especially to verses 10, 16-20, in this regard. Does that sound like somebody God is making payments to? Do you think God is in debt, in the first place? Where in scripture is Satan owed anything by God? Where in scripture did Jesus Christ die, to satisfy Satan? You see some whacked things on the web, and that's a real doozy.

Matthew 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.



posted on Sep, 1 2018 @ 11:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Scrutinizing
As for this notion in the thread there's a payment made to the devil? God has to pay off Satan? Utterly ridiculous.

Let me clarify. I mentioned this famous theory from Origen only for the purpose of rejecting it.
Mainstream theology considers it completely answered by Anselm.
The purpose of the second post was to put aside the whole "somebody must have received the payment" idea (because it's a quibble that can be used by the sceptics).



posted on Sep, 1 2018 @ 11:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: DISRAELI

originally posted by: Scrutinizing
As for this notion in the thread there's a payment made to the devil? God has to pay off Satan? Utterly ridiculous.

Let me clarify. I mentioned this famous theory from Origen only for the purpose of rejecting it.
Mainstream theology considers it completely answered by Anselm.
The purpose of the second post was to put aside the whole "somebody must have received the payment" idea (because it's a quibble that can be used by the sceptics).


No, it was I, then, unclear, was addressing a statement made by somebody else, the intent a "corporate reply" to the thread, of a notion being floated. To be clear, I was not replying in criticism of you on this point, and I apologize if I said something in a way you perceive this so. Actually, looking back at the first page here, it was somebody saying it made sense Satan was paid off, and this was not you. In fact, you say some very profound things, DISRAELI, appreciate your work. In my opinion, this is the best thread on the page, though, of course, prejudiced this way, loving the things of God.



posted on Sep, 1 2018 @ 11:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Scrutinizing
Thank you. But since somebody else apparently misunderstood me as endorsing the idea, it was probably good to get the point clarified anyway.



posted on Sep, 1 2018 @ 11:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: Scrutinizing
Thank you. But since somebody else apparently misunderstood me as endorsing the idea, it was probably good to get the point clarified anyway.



Well, you know how it is. All the confusion starts, when we try to communicate things. It's sort of like your namesake there, how Churchill said, "Americans and British are one people, separated by a common language." Though I do believe that was Shaw, and Patton said the same thing, though Churchill may not have understood.



posted on Sep, 2 2018 @ 03:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Scrutinizing

Christ called himself the "Son of Man"
The only equivilates to God prophesied in the book of daniel.
The ancient of days part.

In around 1612 (I think last I checked 20 years ago)
All recognized churches anrd denominational leaders had a worldwide gathering and during this meeting a vote was cast to call Christ the son of God.

They might have convinced each other to go the way of the hypocrite hater Peter and contradict Christ and deny him thrice but I only consider his declaration of himself valid

Son of man.

He is not god. You should understand that before the crucification he prayed to God.

Why would he pray to himself?
That claim to his godhood is misleading as it is incorrect.

See it was written that we would know the anti Christ as he would "Declare himself God to the World"

And the reason we are assured he is not god is that it was written the Almighty would never take a form on Earth that is or resembles a mortal one.

Read Daniel.
Forget Pete.

Christ is the Messiah, and the one chosen for this role, he will also oversee the gates of Judgement on the last day.

Not Peter.

Peter tried to push that Christ was of divine birth while Christ was alive.
Christ corrected him several times and clarified his nature of birth.

After Christ was gone, Peter went right back to pushing that narrative that so many mislead denominations do now.

Christ wouldn't Lie about his heritage.
Peter just wouldn't take a hint and stop lying.

You can communicate to God by invoking Christ's Aramaic name, but Christ is not god nor is god Christ. Not in a literal sense anyway.. though one could derail discussion in discourse of "what exists within what"
More to the point Christ is enlightened and evolved through enlightenment to higher and more advanced states of Energy.

But don't mistake a sheep preachers claim to Christ's divinity as comparable in truth to HIS own words on the matter.

Part of the reason I don't go to churches anymore is I am tired of correcting beliefs that are not proven valid through evidence available.

If Christ says he's the Son of Man. He's the Son of Man....

He said it, take it up with him.

I trust his words over the claims of the most ignorant and narrow minded of his disciples
edit on 2-9-2018 by AutisticEvo because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2018 @ 03:49 AM
link   
a reply to: AutisticEvo
"Son of Man" and "Son of God" are both in the New Testament.
The official teaching of the church, that Christ is God and man simultaneously, was being sorted out seventeen centuries ago. The results can be found in the Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Creed, which date from that era.
Your "world-wide meeting" of 1612 is imaginary; at a a guess, I suspect that you've got a confused memory of reading about the Synod of Dort, which was a meeting of representative of Calvinist churches (including, in those days, the Church of England). They were arguing over Calvinist issues relating to Predestination.
Or are you thinking about the 1611 translation of the Bible, which some people seem to confuse with the beginning of the Bible itself?

A thread on Redemption is not really the place to be arguing about the Incarnation, but I can refer you to some Incarnation threads of my own.
E.g. The Word became flesh
Jesus is a man

P.S. Well, the Synod of Dort was 1618, having checked, but I can't think of anything else of that date which comes close to the description.


edit on 2-9-2018 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2018 @ 07:49 AM
link   
a reply to: AutisticEvo

Sorry, Autistic, but you gave yourself away on your ability to decipher Bible meaning when you used words such as "enlightened", "advanced states of energy", "introspective self reflection", and claiming to have spiritual wisdom on many books. A Bible expert you clearly are not.



posted on Sep, 2 2018 @ 09:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Scrutinizing



Then, there would be the presumption the sinner would have something with which to buy Christ with. In our flesh is no good thing! What would a lost sinner buy Christ with? We're not seeking Christ by nature, have nothing to buy Him with, and He's not for sale. It's blaspheme to say you can buy the Lord Jesus Christ, Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost. Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.


Perhaps this one is less likely to be misconstrued....



Jesus said that it was easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to go to heaven.


So would you sell your fancy house, fancy car and everything else for a dime to enter heaven? Not a transaction between you and Jesus of cause. But to ones ego, it may seem so, thus the previous parable.

The Ebionites were the first Jewish Christians (those Saul use to hunt down aka Jesus people). They were called the poor ones because they shunned materialism for spiritualism. The rich romans wouldn't have a bar of that . So for Paul to successfully sell Christianity to the Romans he had to put less emphasis on self sacrifice. More emphasis on receiving spiritualism from belief alone.

But instead of us all bathing in our self righteousness. Perhaps we should consider the possibility that beliefs can only take us so far. To overcome the final hurdles we need immerse ourselves in prayer and meditation. One of the 36 Doctors of the Church, St. John of the Cross, describes his hardships and difficulties in detaching from the world in his book the Dark Night of the Soul.
edit on 2-9-2018 by glend because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2018 @ 06:55 AM
link   
a reply to: glend

Being a 'rich man' is not about how much you have, it is not about possessions................it is about the 'possessor'.

If it is believed that there is a 'you' that can have or have not.............then that 'you' cannot enter heaven.

Really, truly there is nothing separate......................there isn't a you................there is simply this that IS.
ONE life.



posted on Sep, 3 2018 @ 03:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Itisnowagain



it is not about possessions.


If we don't trade our $30,000 car for a $3,000 car to feed a starving child aren't we in fact killing that child with our selfishness? Altruism goes hand in hand with Spiritualism. Not seeing the self interest of others any less important than our own.

So yes its not about possessions. Its about why we acquire possessions. To feed our ego or to live a life of moderation so we can pursuit our spiritual goals. To be born again, the old materialistic-grasping-ego must die.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join