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.

 

Were you born "dirty" or created in the image of God?

page: 4
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566

when god created adam and eve, he did not intend for them to sin. to say that he did i just plain illogical and displays a lack of basic insight into this situation.

adam and eve were intended to live forever in a paradise earth
....

yes, god understood that [sin] would happen. but its not a flaw in his design. he designed them with freewill.


I'm not trying to argue for the sake of it, or come across arrogant/ignorant (though that might be a by-product of what I'll ask
) I am truly trying to understand, but if I understand all you have written and tried to explain to me thus far God made Adam and Eve to not sin but being omniscient he knew that they would?
I can't help but see this as a design flaw; he intended them to reside forever in Paradise but as soon as he created them he knew they would not...
Perhaps it's just a paradox I cannot get my head round.

I'm not trying to argue the implication of free will, but more an inability to grasp the concept of God trying or intending anything at all. He either does or does not. I cannot begin to imagine that God intended one thing and the opposite happens, free will in Adam, Eve and man or no.

Perhaps I'm not making much sense, but the idea of omniscience opens up all sorts of complications and paradoxes for me.




posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElKapitan
but if I understand all you have written and tried to explain to me thus far God made Adam and Eve to not sin but being omniscient he knew that they would?


exactly.


I can't help but see this as a design flaw; he intended them to reside forever in Paradise but as soon as he created them he knew they would not...
Perhaps it's just a paradox I cannot get my head round.

I'm not trying to argue the implication of free will, but more an inability to grasp the concept of God trying or intending anything at all. He either does or does not. I cannot begin to imagine that God intended one thing and the opposite happens, free will in Adam, Eve and man or no.


i bring up free will because its the key to understanding whats going on.

let me word this another way imagine for a moment that you are god. you are the sole existence. there is nothing besides you. you dont need anything. everything that is, is you.

lets say for a moment that you want companions (want, not need) someone who can share this experience of existence with you. what type of being would you create?

im sure that god could come up with an infinite number of types but i thought of three.

- you could create a sock puppet. in your mind, it could be someone else. but unfortunately its not a companion, its simply a manifestation of your imagination, and extension of who you are. this is kind of how trinitarians view jesus, they say that he and god are separate, yet the same which essentially equates jesus to a sock puppet.

- you could create a robot. not a complicated one mind you, but something more advanced than the sock puppet. it would be more advanced, but it wouldnt have freewill. it does what its programed to do and nothing more. but then its not really sharing the same existence as you is it? you cant really say that its in your image. this is most how people who believe in pre-destiny view it. if god punishes you for something, its because he wanted you to sin in the first place. this frankly makes no sense.

- your third option is to make a being like yourself, but separate. you design them with the basic operations, and then you let them learn for themselves and make their own decisions. but the problem this creation is that it inevitably creates the possibility (not in terms of probability but i mean it creates the ability) of rebellion. this means that your creation will be able to decide to go against your will. you look at time, and you realize in fact that this rebellion is an inevitability.

there is only one reason i can see that god would continue to create a creature with freewill even though he knows that some will definitely 100% rebel, and that is because he is absolutely sure that some wont.

he knew that adam and eve would sin, but he also knew that some of their offspring would be faithful. so he turns this entire rebellion into a lesson for the faithful.

from this rebellion we learned several things.

- mankind is incapable of ruling themselves. it always inevitably ends in people suffering.
- man cannot rule themselves. similiar to the first but on the individual level. inevitably we will make mistake and sometimes pay dearly for those mistakes.
- man is capable of serving god unselfishly.
- god is patient with his creation, but his patience has limits. he allows us to learn from our mistakes, but there is a point that if we havent learned yet, we never will.

these lessons cannot be taught by someone simply telling you, we've had 6000 years of solid experience. we have history that we can review and examine that testifies to this.

the "faithful", those who side with god learn an important lesson about life, but they also get to continue living. they continue to learn and grow. to god this is good, because he will have a people who choose to serve him, not who are coerced by "programming"

does that make more sense?



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElKapitan


Perhaps it's just a paradox I cannot get my head round.



Where's the paradox? Nothing said was illogical or contradictory.

God's omniscience does not contradict our free will.

Imagine that a couple is thinking of having a baby. They know that the child will rebel, get in trouble, lie, talk back...etc. But out of love they have it anyway.

Same with God. He knew we'd rebel. But out of love he made us anyway.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 


That makes a lot more sense now. I think I was being a bit too narrow minded in my approach to the concept, taking Adam and Eve as the whole rather than as the forebearers of a humanity to come which would produce believers and followers. I just got stuck on concept of God thinking or imagining God not knowing the fall of A & E would come.



Where's the paradox? Nothing said was illogical or contradictory. God's omniscience does not contradict our free will.


As I said, it was not a question of free will vs. omniscience. If you read my post again and specifically the lines I quoted I think the paradox is quite evident. I shall paraphrase what was said, if I may:
1) God created Adam and Eve with the intention that they would be companions with him for all time and (by this logic) they would not sin.
2) God, being omniscient, knew as soon as he contemplated creating them that they would sin. Not probablyor possiblydue to free will but definately, for God knows all.
The two cancel each other out; God could not possibly intend for Adam and Eve to remain with him for he knew they would not. That is the paradox, that is the contradiction, there is the lack of logic.

However, in light of Miriam's last post I can see that perhaps it was more that God, in creating Adam and Eve, knew that they would sin and produce humanity who would then produce believers and followers.....if i've finally managed to grasp things



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by Christ!
 


I'm pretty sure that using your user name is considered blasphemy (unless you are the second coming) and breaks one of the ten commandments, the whole name in vain one. It makes it hard to take you seriously when you are breaking two rules of your own religion just with your user name!


Christ is the truth about me, and also the truth about everyone, even the "least of these my brethren". You are simply in denial, and i am not. In Jesus' day, it was also considered blasphemy. It did not stop Jesus from stating the truth. It's true whether you believe it or not.

Christ!



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by badmedia
Realize that calling yourself of the flesh is about like playing a video game such as WoW, and then likening yourself as being your character in game. But it is not you, you are the consciousness/soul/spirit behind the character.

And this is also true in life. I find it somewhat amazing that people play these video games and don't even realize they are basically playing a "game" within a "game".

Imagine if you had been born into a game like WoW, or into a "matrix". That is life. As long as you see yourself as being born of the game, a part of the game and so on then you will not see the truth.

Hope that makes sense.



Good analogy. I am merely asserting that my "soul" is Christ, and this is the same soul for all who believe they are in a world as a person that is separate or unique or special in any way. This is the "soul" that is "lost" when the persuit of special status overrides the truth of oneness.

Christ!



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Christ!

Christ is the truth about me, and also the truth about everyone, even the "least of these my brethren". You are simply in denial, and i am not. In Jesus' day, it was also considered blasphemy. It did not stop Jesus from stating the truth. It's true whether you believe it or not.

Christ!


Not even close, Bubba! My eyes are wide open. I do not simply accept things because someone else tells me so, nor do I believe something just because it say's so in an ancient text.

Also, Christ, taken from the greek cristo which translates to the annointed one, is reserved for the Messiah of the ancient Hebrew holy books. So, again, unless you are the second coming *giggle*, it is both blasphemous and against the previously mentioned commandment (Exodus 20 verse 7) according to your own faith. If you cannot follow the rules of your own faith, why should anyone heed your words in reference to the same. Apparently, you seem to feel comfortable cherry picking which parts to follow and which parts to dismiss, so why shouldn't the rest of us?

[edit on 10-2-2009 by JaxonRoberts]



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


So does this mean that anointing oils are only reserved for the anointed one? I don't think so.

John 14:20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

Everything Jesus said about himself was also true of you.

I don't get my "rules" from "faith" or a book. I get my commandments and understandings directly from the father and holy spirit. But since you mention this, which faith and rule set are you talking about exactly? It's not like there is only 1 version of it.

Personally, I'd drop the bible before I became subject to the rules and laws of man. God's laws are simple and they are the only ones that matter.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 


What I meant by giving the definition of the word is that the name 'Christ' is a name reserved for Jesus of Nazareth, or the Messiah. If you did a survey asking people to define the word 'Christ', 99.999999% of them would tell you it refers to Jesus. You seem to be of deep faith, would you ever introduce yourself to someone as 'Christ' and then have a religious discussion??? I have no problem with a Christian refering to themselves as 'Christ-like' or 'One with Christ', but there is a very big difference between those examples and refering to oneself as 'Christ'. My spiritual beleifs have grown far beyond Christianity, but I still try to be respectful of it's teachings when discussing it. I find this to be disrespectful of the faith, and inappropriate coming from one of it's followers, that's all I'm trying to say.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
What I meant by giving the definition of the word is that the name 'Christ' is a name reserved for Jesus of Nazareth, or the Messiah. If you did a survey asking people to define the word 'Christ', 99.999999% of them would tell you it refers to Jesus. You seem to be of deep faith, would you ever introduce yourself to someone as 'Christ' and then have a religious discussion??? I have no problem with a Christian refering to themselves as 'Christ-like' or 'One with Christ', but there is a very big difference between those examples and refering to oneself as 'Christ'. My spiritual beleifs have grown far beyond Christianity, but I still try to be respectful of it's teachings when discussing it. I find this to be disrespectful of the faith, and inappropriate coming from one of it's followers, that's all I'm trying to say.


Well, I personally wouldn't use the name. But it doesn't bother me that he does, and I don't discredit him for doing such. The way I see it, he is just trying to come to understanding things.

What he is doing is putting himself into the perspective of Jesus/Christ. And that I believe is the right way to understand things. Religion IMO has made it to be that Jesus is everything you are not, and that I do not believe. I believe such is a manipulation to keep people from actually following Jesus. Following Jesus is replaced by worship of Jesus.

To me, Jesus is someone who was fully awake and understood the truth. And we are those who are not fully awake and are just starting to awaken(some of us anyway). I don't worship Jesus as god, however I do not at all doubt that the father is in fact speaking through Jesus. But I do separate the 2.

In truth, we are all sons and daughters of god. Not just Jesus. Jesus was just someone who recognized it in a time when nobody else seemed to, knew the truth and from that the father spoke through him.

Respect is really a matter of opinion I guess. I personally think many of the things religion does is completely disrespectful. Like wearing a cross. I think that is disrespectful. As Bill Hicks once said, it's the equivalent of wearing a rifle pendent in memory of JFK. Where as I celebrate his life and example, it seems others celebrate his death. Which is a place where I find myself in agreement with Christ!, as being a sacrifice of the truth so that the lie may live, and those who find salvation in his death are those who live in the lie.

I think those things are much much worse than a name.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts

Originally posted by Christ!

Christ is the truth about me, and also the truth about everyone, even the "least of these my brethren". You are simply in denial, and i am not. In Jesus' day, it was also considered blasphemy. It did not stop Jesus from stating the truth. It's true whether you believe it or not.

Christ!


Not even close, Bubba! My eyes are wide open. I do not simply accept things because someone else tells me so, nor do I believe something just because it say's so in an ancient text.

Also, Christ, taken from the greek cristo which translates to the annointed one, is reserved for the Messiah of the ancient Hebrew holy books. So, again, unless you are the second coming *giggle*, it is both blasphemous and against the previously mentioned commandment (Exodus 20 verse 7) according to your own faith. If you cannot follow the rules of your own faith, why should anyone heed your words in reference to the same. Apparently, you seem to feel comfortable cherry picking which parts to follow and which parts to dismiss, so why shouldn't the rest of us?

[edit on 10-2-2009 by JaxonRoberts]


Christ is not a regional nationalistic figure for any nation to call its own to the exclusion of any other nation.
Christ has nothing to do with Hebrew lore.
If the Hebrew prophets knew so much, why are they dead?
They can "annoint" anyone they please.
They did not annoint Jesus.
Jesus did not need their endorsement.
Anyone who can raise the dead needs not the endorsement of dead prophets.
Jesus annointed himself with the oil of his own joy.
That joy comes from his *Reality*...from who he really is.
Jesus' joy accounted for much of his publicity, popularity.
He had a sense of humor.
He exuded joy, innocence, certainty, authority, fearlessness, and dependency on GoD.
He did not carry a bible.
He was not a door to door bible salesman.
His authority came from his Self, equal to GoD.


Christ is another word for *Reality*.
Jesus had at least three words for Reality.
A. Truth
B. Kingdom of God
C. Son of God

Likewise, he had three words for illusion.
A. Lies
B. The World
C. son of man

Jesus did not use the words "reality" or "Christ".
Nor did he pretend to be the fulfillment of Jewish folklore for a special ruler.
All such pretending is done by those who falsely select [annoint] him as such.
Christ is a greek psychological term.
It is a reference to mind, as in "mind of Christ", or, "the mind that was in Christ Jesus".
If some use it to make Jesus a Jewish Messiah, then they use it incorrectly.
All such usage defeats the authentic message Jesus promoted.
Christ cannot be limited to any individual.
Individuals are masks that hide Christ.
Christ must be the reality of every individual, or not at all.
That is why if someone comes and says, "I am the Christ"...as if others were not...this one comes as a kind of anti-christ.
Christ is not exclusive, but all inclusive.
Jesus saw everyone as Christ.
He advised us this way,
"Love your neighbor as yourself".
In this way, he came to know himself as Christ.
Christ is one despite appearances of separation and fragmentation.
None of the appearances are really Christ.
Jesus was an appearance.
An appearance is not a reality.
An appearance is a mask over reality.
So, when I say that I am Christ, don't think I am including what is not real.
Personhood, male or female, is not real.
Personhood is a concept to be saved from by identifying with truth instead.

Since I've used Christ! as an alias, I've been able to interpret Jesus message much better. He showed the way to escape illusions by identifying with Reality. The logic of this is flawless. How can one expect to wake up from a dream while s/he insists that s/he is a character within the dream? How can one expect to understand that Jesus taught of sleeping and waking if s/he insists that the dream and its characters are real? It simply does not compute, and does not work toward salvation. There is a way. Jesus showed the way. You can't take any part of the dream with you to Reality. So why identify with any part of the dream?
One must identify with the entire dream by identifying with the dreamer of the dream. Only then may he awaken. And this is what it means to identify with Christ in baptism. Baptism is simple the washing away of lies out of one's mind, which prevent him from seeing the truth. The prime lies in the dream are of and about role playing characters. The issue is always about identity, always has been. The world is a dream in which true identity is deliberately denied. The solution, then, is to stop denying what is true...stop pretending.

Those who stop pretending will be joyful.
They will be joyful because the dream is dreary as it denies Joy itself.
The truth is Joy itself.
Logically, if you identify with youSelf, you identify with joy.
This is the truest meaning of "annointed".
It does not select among individuals which one(s) shall be *special*.
This is anti-christ.
The truth is, Christ is the only way to end the concept of being special.
Christ is not special because Christ is shared equally by all.
The special are arrogant.
The truth is humble.



Christ!






[edit on 10-2-2009 by Christ!]



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566
i bring up free will because its the key to understanding whats going on.
let me word this another way imagine for a moment that you are god. you are the sole existence. there is nothing besides you. you dont need anything. everything that is, is you.
lets say for a moment that you want companions (want, not need) someone who can share this experience of existence with you. what type of being would you create?
im sure that god could come up with an infinite number of types but i thought of three.
- you could create a sock puppet. in your mind, it could be someone else. but unfortunately its not a companion, its simply a manifestation of your imagination, and extension of who you are. this is kind of how trinitarians view jesus, they say that he and god are separate, yet the same which essentially equates jesus to a sock puppet.
- you could create a robot. not a complicated one mind you, but something more advanced than the sock puppet. it would be more advanced, but it wouldnt have freewill. it does what its programed to do and nothing more. but then its not really sharing the same existence as you is it? you cant really say that its in your image. this is most how people who believe in pre-destiny view it. if god punishes you for something, its because he wanted you to sin in the first place. this frankly makes no sense.
- your third option is to make a being like yourself, but separate. you design them with the basic operations, and then you let them learn for themselves and make their own decisions. but the problem this creation is that it inevitably creates the possibility (not in terms of probability but i mean it creates the ability) of rebellion. this means that your creation will be able to decide to go against your will. you look at time, and you realize in fact that this rebellion is an inevitability.
there is only one reason i can see that god would continue to create a creature with freewill even though he knows that some will definitely 100% rebel, and that is because he is absolutely sure that some wont.
he knew that adam and eve would sin, but he also knew that some of their offspring would be faithful. so he turns this entire rebellion into a lesson for the faithful.

"what type of being would you create?"
GoD creates only equals.
Like from Like.
So, what is GoD like?
GoD creates by extension.
Meaning, he extends what is already perfect to another.
GoD is already perfect.
So,
All GoD has to give is GoD.
This is enough, because this is Everything.
In this way,
Creation and sharing are synonymous in the "Kingdom of God."
GoD never gives less than Everything.
GoD never limits.
GoD does not make barriers, nor does GoD break them.
How can one give more than the totality of everything that is real and perfect?
To give less would not be love.
To give more is impossible.
And as GoD gives, so give those to whom GoD extends everything.
In this way, all within the Kingdom of God share all equally.
There is no heirarchy in the Kingdom of God.
All are free, and all share all power.
All are the same, having no unique attributes.
All the "Sons" of GoD are also "Fathers".
There is not a Son which is also not a Father.
But there is no Son without a Father.
There is also no Son who is his own Father.
One of these Sons had an idea.
What if everything was different?
The world is the answer to that question.
What is different from Heaven? Hell.
Hell is simply the free expression of all ideas opposed to what is all the same: GoD.
Hell is the idea that the Everything of GoD is different in every way.
Hell is the freedom to express opposition, without consequence.
The Son who expresses hell does so in imagination only.
The Son is given a mind that is capable of making fantasy seem real.
This is the only reason the world seems real:
It is imagined in a powerful mind.
If the Son is Everything,
and hell is what is *different* than everything,
then hell is a self-concept.
The concept expresses as "Christ crucified".
Christ is the Everything.
And,
The world is the Everything different, upside down, backwards, inside out, and scrambled.
Get it?
If the Son is the Truth,
then,
Everything about hell will be a lie, from beginning to end.
Hell ends when the truth returns to the mind of the dreamer(s).
So,
Hell is fundamentally a belief.
It is "made" our of unbelief in Christ, which is the definition of "sin".
If Christ is reality,
Then,
Unbelief in Christ is the essence of madness and insanity.
Therefore,
What produces the world is insane, as well as all of its effects.
The gOd of biblical genesis is insane.
The insane cannot "see" this.
After all, they are effects of what is insane.
It is not Adam which is the "sinner".
Adam is the effect of "the" sinner.
And this is "gOd".
This is a false gOd.
This gOd is self-made.
A self-made gOd is the concept of a self-made father.
So,
This gOd is called "father", and its son is called "son of man".
In this insane way, the Son becomes his own "father".
Hell, then, is the reversal of Cause and Effect.
I call this the *great reversal*.
This reversal generates all that we think of as "the universe".
"The universe" parades as everything, and its "gOd" parades as *GoD*.
So,
"The universe" is the free expression of what is opposite GoD.
However, there is nothing opposite GoD.
So,
The universe is nothing parading as everything.
The universe is what is beyond everything, which is...nothing.
To escape the universe, we must forgive ourselves for making it.
This means we must take responsibility.
If we deny responsibility, we may never escape it.
Therefore,
For salvation purposes, we must "identify" with "the universe" as a self concept.
We have pretended to "be" whatever "the universe" made us.
We must "confess" this, that it may be forgiven.
We are, in fact, the Lord of the universe, and not the other way around.
As we identify ourselves as "the Lord", we free ourselves from lies by the truth.
We are the Truth, masquerading as lies.
The masquerade lasts as long as we lie about this.
But, all false things must come to an end.
The end will come voluntarily, just as it began.
There is no consequence.

Christ!


[edit on 10-2-2009 by Christ!]



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 10:40 PM
link   
Awesome explanation Miriam ....very well put and easy to understand ...star for ya..



Ok Christ and Badmedia (yes it is me again lol) .....

We are important to GOD ....we do matter in the scheme of things (all creation does) so nobody should consider themselves as nobody or insignificant in regards to the Lord ...As he is the creator of the entire creation and he loves his work (us) .................

Another thing ...Jesus was different than we are ..as I have said before he is THE ONLY BEGOTTEN son of God (One of a kind) ..he was also the FIRST of the FIRSTFRUITS(There are more firstfruits to come) .....he is also the HEIR to the kingdom of GOD ...and we are JOINT HEIRS with him (ONLY HIS FAITHFUL ARE) ..(We are not above the Master nor are we below him as we will RULE WITH HIM ) ................he describes himself as our brethren (so he is family and is also the FIRSTBORN who is HEIR to the KINGDOM) ......we are not the firstborn ....we are not even part of the first of the firsfruits(those who rose with him were all of the OT prophets ..they are the first of the firstfruits of Christ ) ............(we are firstfruits but not the first of them) ...

'
Jesus the Heir ........
Hbr 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by [his] Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

We are only ADOPTED JOINT HEIRS THROUGH CHRIST >>..
Rom 8:17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with [him], that we may be also glorified together.

Gal 4:5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

Gal 4:6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.

Gal 4:7 Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.

Gal 4:8 Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods.

Gal 4:9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?


We are not above him nor below him IF WE HAVE BEEN BORN AGAIN AND DO HIS WILL >....
Mat 10:24 The disciple is not above [his] master, nor the servant above his lord.
Luk 6:40 The disciple is not above his master: but every one that is perfect shall be as his master.
(the passages above just show that we will be AS THE MASTER because we will RULE WITH HIM when he rules) .............

NOT NOW but when we are perfected in him ..(which does not happen completely until he comes ..(we are being perfected through trials and tribulations here and now ..for the purifying of our hearts souls and minds)..

Anyone who thinks he is perfect now and thinks that he is Christ now...is a narcissist ....(sorry but it is true ..we are being perfected but not yet perfected like Christ was so no we are NOT CHRIST >>) ...........
We are also not sitting at the right hand of the father as Jesus is ..

Hbr 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of [our] faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

Hbr 12:3 For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds.

Hbr 12:4 Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin.

Hbr 12:5 And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him:

Hbr 12:6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.

Hbr 12:7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?

Hbr 12:8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.


Badmedia I would like to hear your experience of being born again ..
Not the voice ordeal where you were just asked a question ..... but the total infilling of the Holy Spirit .....(like what happened at Pentecost to the believers ) ........
You too Christ ...if yall dont mind ...(please keep it short but detailed) ....


And yeah yeah I know I quoted from Paul again (get over it lol)..but I can see now why you have to toss his books out ..because Paul knew that he was not Christ nor god .....he was TOO HUMBLE for yall to comprehend............humble is not an easy thing to be ..I know that ...and even though Paul was full of the spirit of God and was bold and had the power of God in him with all authority ...HE REMAINED HUMBLE and did not count himself EQUAL TO GOD OR CHRIST >...he knew his place ...as we all should ....................




[edit on 10-2-2009 by Simplynoone]



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 11:42 PM
link   
You aren't adopted, that is Paul talking. Where does Jesus ever say you will be adopted? And you quoted Hebrews a bunch, and I'm not sure if you have ever listened to anyone who is Jewish speak, but they completely debunk the idea that those verses are talking about Jesus - at least in the way people make Jesus out to be. But that is another topic of course.

I do not think I am greater than Jesus, and I've never said such. I consider Jesus to be my brother. A much older and wiser brother than I am.

Also, what do you think is perfect? Being perfect is just living by gods laws, the commandments. You still retain your uniqueness and personality. People who talk about perfect seem to imply they are talking about a bunch of robots or something, which is what I would consider to be selling your soul.

I have told you my vision before, but I will post it again. I'm currently working atm, and keep getting distracted away from my thoughts, so I will get to it soon.

[edit on 10-2-2009 by badmedia]



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Simplynoone


And yeah yeah I know I quoted from Paul again (get over it lol)..but I can see now why you have to toss his books out ..because Paul knew that he was not Christ nor god .....he was TOO HUMBLE for yall to comprehend............humble is not an easy thing to be ..I know that ...and even though Paul was full of the spirit of God and was bold and had the power of God in him with all authority ...HE REMAINED HUMBLE and did not count himself EQUAL TO GOD OR CHRIST >...he knew his place ...as we all should ....................


I think that is the first time I've seen Paul described as humble. He claims to the be the new teacher in god, puts up people of authority, and says that he has begotten you as his father in hopes of adoption. His writings make up nearly half the NT. Meanwhile, I would never in a million years claim to be your teacher, your father or claim any authority over you. I would be truly saddened if you treat me anything like Paul claims to be, because I am NOT the one who has your answers, I can merely help you find the correct questions. There is only 1 father, 1 teacher and you are your own authority, I am not your authority. If you love something, you will set it free, not hold it in bondage. If it loves you, it will come back.

[edit on 10-2-2009 by badmedia]



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Deaf Alien
 


The "God created man in his image" is not meant to be taken literally. If we literally were made to look like God, we would all look the same - every one of us would look like a clone of another, with no distinction.

What the verse really means is that we were made with the same traits as God such as mercy, compassion, love, among others.

We are not considered demi-gods for having these traits, and neither are we responsible for the sin of parents, or our parent's parents, or great great great grandparents. If we were all responsible for their sins, then the amount of sins that equals up to our birth will be too vast an amount to outweigh our good deeds, making everyone destined for hell.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by lee anoma
 


Star for your post!



In my opinion we are not born dirty at all. Man is not an after-effect of a sin and therefore a sinner by default. People choose to punish themselves with such notions. We are powerful beings, and we don't need to be sold a rotten bill of goods to make us feel helpless and vile. What is the purpose of such things?


Precisely. Which was the point of my post. Those in power want you to feel 'dirty' and in need of forgiveness and salvation, thus putting you under their control.



I know a woman who's brother was born premature and the mothers first response was to rush him to church for a baptism in case he died and ended up suffering for something he had no control over.


That is really sad. The funny part is that that baby was never born in sin in the first place.

Again, so called original sin, if it even exists, was NEVER our fault. What kind of justice system is it if people are held accountable for their parents' crimes (or sins)?



To me it's silly.


Yes, pretty much.

But the thing is how to get people to see that?



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 12:04 AM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 




Realize that calling yourself of the flesh is about like playing a video game such as WoW, and then likening yourself as being your character in game. But it is not you, you are the consciousness/soul/spirit behind the character.


Yes, that is basically what reality is. We are like "first person players".

If there is any truth to being born in the image of God, then this is it. We are not born of the flesh, but of the spirit. That is our true selves.



Hope that makes sense.


Very much so



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 12:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJMessiah
reply to post by Deaf Alien
 


The "God created man in his image" is not meant to be taken literally. If we literally were made to look like God, we would all look the same - every one of us would look like a clone of another, with no distinction.

What the verse really means is that we were made with the same traits as God such as mercy, compassion, love, among others.

We are not considered demi-gods for having these traits, and neither are we responsible for the sin of parents, or our parent's parents, or great great great grandparents. If we were all responsible for their sins, then the amount of sins that equals up to our birth will be too vast an amount to outweigh our good deeds, making everyone destined for hell.


I think of it in terms of consciousness/soul/spirit as being in his image.

My body and environment around me does not define me, or who I actually am. It defines my experience. So that is what I believe is in his image.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by sir_chancealot
 




That means that if your child has a genetic disease, you are going to ignore it, right? I mean, after all, it isn't THEIR fault, so therefore (and according to your own logic) you can just ignore it, and not treat it. So, we can ignore ALL genetic diseases, because they don't need treatment, right? Do people even LEARN logical thinking anymore?


Uh, that is different.

Let's say that a child has inherited AIDS from parents. Should we punish this child for having AIDS? Yes, let's spank... no torture this child for that. Let this child learn the lesson of his or her parents.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join