The AGE OLD question? WHERE IS and who is ACTUALLY talking to God, aka Source Entity or Origin

page: 12
6
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by godlover25
reply to post by vethumanbeing
 


Are you looking for a Prophet or a Fortune Teller?
These days many people think Prophets are fortune tellers,
a Prophet is simply a man who proclaims Words from Gods Mouth,
Let me prophesy unto you, here, now, in 2012
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Don't go there, fortune tellers are just honing an age old craft and who is to brand it deceptive; actually
at least its a job (sounds like someone is making an honest living on an irony/dichotemy).
Where is the soft robed one that proclaims Words from God's Mouth that is not actually
quoting scripture that someone else has the copyright to? Jesus is welcome to manefest anytime.
I'm asking for the those mouthpieces that are ACTUALLY speaking to IT/THE DEITY/THE IAM/THE HEY FOLKS real now time.

A brand new Book first edition I HOPE is sitting on some publishers desk somewhere; at least
it would be current this time frame and not (no disrespect) commentary on the extremely vague
origins of the human race filled with riddles and indeciferable thought patterns.
edit on 13-12-2012 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)
edit on 13-12-2012 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by jhill76
 


"Satan" was created by "God", as everything comes from "God" or from the creations he designed. How does a purely good god produce such evil?


Excellent point and could be your brand new thread. If it is percieved that 'God is Good' oh what a wake up call
is needed here (and which god is being referred to exactly). Satan did not create itself, and it was allowed to express itself because it was the scapegoat for all things evil or unplanned for accidents, basically taking all blame for the Free Will experiment oh yes (also blamed for) as It keep the secret to Itself; had the totally original idea to keep humankind unaware of its creator? Point; to see what would happen-unheard of prior.
edit on 13-12-2012 by vethumanbeing because: insert word that defines meaning



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by jhill76

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by jhill76
 


I'm tired of these parent example. Does the parent design the child knowing exactly what will come of it? No.


I will remove myself, if you only want set answers to fit your own view.


I think in this case there was a purposeful setup and that the design of it was very well thought through.
The parent child relationship is a good analogy-except the parent knew exactly what it was doing, orchestrated all of it accomplished its goal and sacrificed its own young to have to live itself down forever in history as the 'bad guy'.
Brilliant.



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by jhill76

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by jhill76
 


I'm tired of these parent example. Does the parent design the child knowing exactly what will come of it? No.


I will remove myself, if you only want set answers to fit your own view.


No no, don't remove yourself. Your commentary stimulates responses and this is necessary for you for me
for others seeking a self truth. You are just as I am the jump off point for each other to self examine.
It is all good in that the responses are genuine; not directed at you personally--sometimes one has a knee
jerk reaction to something unidentifible. That's where the fun begins/lies; and admittedly some play the game better but realize this: we are playing the game against and with ourselves (true understanding comes when that epiphany arrives).



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by vethumanbeing
 




I think in this case there was a purposeful setup and that the design of it was very well thought through. The parent child relationship is a good analogy-except the parent knew exactly what it was doing, orchestrated all of it accomplished its goal and sacrificed its own young to have to live itself down forever in history as the 'bad guy'. Brilliant.


Yes, this is correct. He is a master planner. The other poster said a good God wouldn't do this, how can one say God will do this or that, when they are not there to watch his every move?



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


If a man is to boast,

Let him boast in the Lord



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by godlover25
 


I was under the impression that this "God" disapproves of arrogance. And boasting is not exactly humble.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


Jeremiah 9:24 but let him who boasts boast about this: that he understands and knows me, that I am the LORD, who exercises kindness, justice and righteousness on earth, for in these I delight," declares the LORD.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by godlover25
 


...Yeah. I don't think I need to take you seriously anymore. ATS, if this is what counts for rational discussion, I am severely disappointed. And no, I'm not afraid to say it.

Any divine being who despises arrogance with the exception of said arrogance being applied to itself, whether by external praise or self-centered entitlement, is a complete and utter "beast of burden". Or to be more precise, the slang term for such a creature.
edit on 14-12-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


2 Timothy 3

New King James Version (NKJV)
Perilous Times and Perilous Men

3 But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, 4 traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away! 6 For of this sort are those who creep into households and make captives of gullible women loaded down with sins, led away by various lusts, 7 always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 8 Now as Jannes and Jambres resisted Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, disapproved concerning the faith; 9 but they will progress no further, for their folly will be manifest to all, as theirs also was.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by godlover25
 


...Yeah. I don't think I need to take you seriously anymore. ATS, if this is what counts for rational discussion, I am severely disappointed. And no, I'm not afraid to say it.

Any divine being who despises arrogance with the exception of said arrogance being applied to itself, whether by external praise or self-centered entitlement, is a complete and utter "beast of burden". Or to be more precise, the slang term for such a creature.
edit on 14-12-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)


Or apply the Enigma Machine; Code thus decyphered:

No arrogance allowed by the human (defective). I am the end all be all. You either speak of me to me or not at all, unless praise filled and ON YOUR KNEES you chatel.

Aside; I was thinking about how Roman soldiers recycled the crucifixes. Wood was scarse (Lebanon) they'd guard the unfortunate soul (actually the wood) until it expired, then reclaim the cross. I was thinking about the person with the cart and beasts of burden and what trials that poor guy had to endure; (nasty bad karma there) the resulting cat calls "Do you know how many toothpicks, No. 2 pencils coulld be made out of just one of those?". To my mind would make a very good Mel Brooks comedy.
edit on 14-12-2012 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 04:11 AM
link   
reply to post by vethumanbeing
 


So, basically what your saying is that a Gnostic is someone who believes something, but is incapable, or unwilling, to explain what they believe. Either you don't actually know what you believe, or, Gnostic adherents don't believe in anything. How exactly did you become a Gnostic if "no living breathing Gnostic would ever consider having to explain itself" ? Surely somewhere along the way another Gnostic helped you understand what being a Gnostic meant... or, how do you know you are a Gnostic? Maybe you're delusional, but think you're a Gnostic. After all, no one could have told you that you were a Gnostic.

It's odd, I waited a long while just to see if your reply would be worthwhile. It wasn't. I gained no Gnosis by reading it. What a pity.

~ Wandering Scribe



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 08:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Wandering Scribe
 


Judging by his post, I'd have to agree with you. That post revealed nothing of what it is to be gnostic.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wandering Scribe
reply to post by vethumanbeing
 


So, basically what your saying is that a Gnostic is someone who believes something, but is incapable, or unwilling, to explain what they believe. Either you don't actually know what you believe, or, Gnostic adherents don't believe in anything. How exactly did you become a Gnostic if "no living breathing Gnostic would ever consider having to explain itself" ? Surely somewhere along the way another Gnostic helped you understand what being a Gnostic meant... or, how do you know you are a Gnostic? Maybe you're delusional, but think you're a Gnostic. After all, no one could have told you that you were a Gnostic.

It's odd, I waited a long while just to see if your reply would be worthwhile. It wasn't. I gained no Gnosis by reading it. What a pity.

~ Wandering Scribe


Gnosis means knowing. You are the 'knowing aspect'. You know 'things'. You know the appearance that appears presently. Can what ever is being aware of this, that is appearing, be described?

A gnostic doesn't 'believe' in something. It knows the something.
The gnostic does not have to believe, it is all seeing, 'all knowing' and everpresent.
edit on 16-12-2012 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 



Gnosis means knowing. You are the 'knowing aspect'. You know 'things'. You know the appearance that appears presently. Can what ever is being aware of this, that is appearing, be described?


You just described it, or attempted to. So apparently, yes.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 



Gnosis means knowing. You are the 'knowing aspect'. You know 'things'. You know the appearance that appears presently. Can what ever is being aware of this, that is appearing, be described?


You just described it, or attempted to. So apparently, yes.


I asked 'what is aware of what is appearing?' Can it be described?

The knowing aspect is always present but never makes an appearance.
Have you ever even noticed it?
edit on 16-12-2012 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 



I asked 'what is aware of what is appearing?' Can it be described?


All of us. I would assume I can describe myself. Scruffy, pale, a little overweight...nah, I kid. But in all seriousness, I've never really understood your point with the whole "seeing the seer" deal. Could you explain that more?


The knowing aspect is always present but never makes an appearance.
Have you ever even noticed it?


I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Could you be more specific, and maybe use more words? Actually, forget the 'maybe'. Please, use more words. Lots more. You don't use enough, and that's why I can hardly understand you. Your whole 'guru advice' game gets tiring.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wandering Scribe
reply to post by vethumanbeing
 


So, basically what your saying is that a Gnostic is someone who believes something, but is incapable, or unwilling, to explain what they believe. Either you don't actually know what you believe, or, Gnostic adherents don't believe in anything. How exactly did you become a Gnostic if "no living breathing Gnostic would ever consider having to explain itself" ? Surely somewhere along the way another Gnostic helped you understand what being a Gnostic meant... or, how do you know you are a Gnostic? Maybe you're delusional, but think you're a Gnostic. After all, no one could have told you that you were a Gnostic.

It's odd, I waited a long while just to see if your reply would be worthwhile. It wasn't. I gained no Gnosis by reading it. What a pity.

~ Wandering Scribe


How do you explain color to a blind man.
Gnostics do not have VFWs, Lions Clubs or Fred Flintstonian Water Buffalo Lodges. Gnostics do not teach; they just exist. I could imagine an enterprise called 'School for Gnostic Training" would be laughable and beside the whole point; but then you have the dicotomy of the Catholic Church made billions on a sacreficial lamb as human and what! no pics. Just a tortured 'symbol' remembered not much different to me than the Have a Nice
Day Smiley Face (NO you have a nice day) --who knows. Hint; Budda is not a Gnostic.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by Wandering Scribe
reply to post by vethumanbeing
 


So, basically what your saying is that a Gnostic is someone who believes something, but is incapable, or unwilling, to explain what they believe. Either you don't actually know what you believe, or, Gnostic adherents don't believe in anything. How exactly did you become a Gnostic if "no living breathing Gnostic would ever consider having to explain itself" ? Surely somewhere along the way another Gnostic helped you understand what being a Gnostic meant... or, how do you know you are a Gnostic? Maybe you're delusional, but think you're a Gnostic. After all, no one could have told you that you were a Gnostic.

It's odd, I waited a long while just to see if your reply would be worthwhile. It wasn't. I gained no Gnosis by reading it. What a pity.

~ Wandering Scribe


Gnosis means knowing. You are the 'knowing aspect'. You know 'things'. You know the appearance that appears presently. Can what ever is being aware of this, that is appearing, be described?

A gnostic doesn't 'believe' in something. It knows the something.
The gnostic does not have to believe, it is all seeing, 'all knowing' and everpresent.
edit on 16-12-2012 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)


GOLD STAR AWARDED HERE; knowing a things essence; and its primal intent good or evil before percieving it sensually.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by vethumanbeing
 


You've done an excellent job of showing how little you really know and understand about gnosticism. Way to make yourself sound closed-minded...at this rate, it's no surprise you understand so little. Perhaps a little unbiased research would do you some good.





new topics
top topics
 
6
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join