Why Father must use destruction to get mans attention

page: 13
3
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 27 2013 @ 06:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by pthena
reply to post by Akragon


On the other hand i know God "micro manages" as you've put it... I have seen it with my own eyes many times... Almost daily these days actually...

People used to say to me that I seemed to live a charmed life - things just working out. I didn't know what it meant at the time. I thought that was just life.

So I got upset, "And exactly how does that help anyone else?" I asked. And maybe my life isn't so charmed as it was.

I don't think bad things happening to people is because they're bad people or anything. Jesus said that the Father brings rain and shine on the righteous and the unrighteous. Then the opposite is true also. I don't think it has to do with micro-managing.
edit on 27-5-2013 by pthena because: (no reason given)


I don't understand why you'd get upset though...

IF you've led a charmed life... Did you not share it with others along the way?

I don't like the term "micro managing" though... it sounds too... human...

People always try to personify God... I don't think its possible honestly...

You've read the Apocryphon of John right?

edit on 27-5-2013 by Akragon because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 27 2013 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by jhill76

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by akushla99
 


I didn't realize I asked for everything at once. All I asked was who these "others" were. That's not everything is it? If it is then there's not very much to that truth.


Certain answers will lead you in a different direction. Then you will ask more, because you will not understand. To properly give all, one would have to explain a lot of background information. Not on an open forum.
edit on 27-5-2013 by jhill76 because: (no reason given)


Can a person understand a triangle with more than 180 degrees if they are not familiar with non-Euclidean geometry? Can a train engineer understand why the train whistle changes pitch if he is unfamiliar with the Doppler Effect? His argument with his friend sitting on porch each day will center around the argument of frame of reference and perspective until each of them knows that the whistle changes pitch to the fixed observer, but not for the one riding with the whistle. In this sense, the passengers on this train cannot know how the paradox can be resolved unless you broaden their awareness with the excluded middle.



edit on 27-5-2013 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 07:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


Is it fair to say that God is a verb and not a noun?



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
reply to post by Akragon
 


Is it fair to say that God is a verb and not a noun?



Fair to who?


can you narrow "God" down to a four letter word?

wait... You've read the Apocryphon of John right?

theres that echo again...


edit on 27-5-2013 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Akragon

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
reply to post by Akragon
 


Is it fair to say that God is a verb and not a noun?



Fair to who?


can you narrow "God" down to a four letter word?

wait... You've read the Apocryphon of John right?

theres that echo again...


edit on 27-5-2013 by Akragon because: (no reason given)


I was referring to the fact that God does not rest in a form. He is active, participating with all forms.



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 


Wouldn't forms still be active?

IF this is a noun

Noun: a word that refers to a person, place, thing, event, substance or quality

And God exists in all forms actively... Wouldn't God be a noun and a verb...

Perhaps even an adjective?

edit on 27-5-2013 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon


I don't understand why you'd get upset though...

IF you've led a charmed life... Did you not share it with others along the way?

It's all pretty complicated. I understand it more now than I did at the time. Maybe the easiest way would be to first share an observation that someone made.

"You know what, P_? You are a totally different person than I thought you were, ever since S_ left. When she was around you, you seemed to just be her accessory, but wow! You actually are a really great guy.'

This doesn't explain things fully, but celibacy suits me a whole lot better than trying to sustain a non-sustainable relationship. There is more to share. And just so you don't get the wrong idea, I spent about a year bemoaning the loss of everything that had been dumped into the insatiable. Pretty ugly bemoaning that was too.

And another aspect is that it seems a bit unseemly when all of nature pays so much attention to one character. Did I mention the word "solipsism" in a previous post? Not good for mental health either.

I don't like the term "micro managing" though... it sounds too... human...

People always try to personify God... I don't think its possible honestly...

But that's precisely what I was accusing you of doing.




You've read the Apocryphon of John right?

I kind of choked on the fact that Sophia was identified as the one who brought forth asexually, thus bringing into being a monster. That seemed a big slam against Philosophy, and at the same time being a slam against the Gospel of John's statement "children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will but born of God" John 1:13.



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by pthena
 



I kind of choked on the fact that Sophia was identified as the one who brought forth asexually, thus bringing into being a monster. That seemed a big slam against Philosophy, and at the same time being a slam against the Gospel of John's statement "children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will but born of God" John 1:13.


I was actually only referring to the beginning... about the "monad"...

There are plenty of things within that book I don't agree with either actually... it still has a version of the trinity, Jesus is still the reason all things were created... *shrug*

Its still an interesting read...

Honestly is it any more believable then revelation?

edit on 27-5-2013 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon


Honestly is it any more believable then revelation?

Did you mean that the other way around?

I loathe Revelation.

As for the Apocryphon, upon less impassioned circumstances, I think that the actual target for ridicule is Philo of Alexandria.



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by pthena
 




Did you mean that the other way around?

I loathe Revelation.


I didn't actually... And I didn't know you don't like revelation...


The feeling is entirely mutual... can't stand that book.


As for the Apocryphon, upon less impassioned circumstances, I think that the actual target for ridicule is Philo of Alexandria


Why do you say that?




posted on May, 27 2013 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon


Why do you say that?

I would have to check my sources for Philo to do a decent breakdown (and I'm too lazy right now)

but basically, as Wikipedia puts it, he represented the apex of Jewish-Hellenistic syncretism, combining Plato and Moses into one philosophical system.

Just from memory: the Sophia was always next to the god, from Sophia came the Logos (which is identified as Torah). So basically, Yahweh (Yaltabaoth) becomes a historical character not because of always being such, but rather because the pre-existent Logos(Torah) said so, (predestined it to be so). So Yahweh is not the boss of Torah, the Torah is the boss over and definer of Yahweh.

If someone wants to fact check the thumbnail I wrote, go ahead, that would just be saving me the work.



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by pthena
reply to post by Akragon


Why do you say that?

I would have to check my sources for Philo to do a decent breakdown (and I'm too lazy right now)

but basically, as Wikipedia puts it, he represented the apex of Jewish-Hellenistic syncretism, combining Plato and Moses into one philosophical system.

Just from memory: the Sophia was always next to the god, from Sophia came the Logos (which is identified as Torah). So basically, Yahweh (Yaltabaoth) becomes a historical character not because of always being such, but rather because the pre-existent Logos(Torah) said so, (predestined it to be so). So Yahweh is not the boss of Torah, the Torah is the boss over and definer of Yahweh.

If someone wants to fact check the thumbnail I wrote, go ahead, that would just be saving me the work.


Alright but In gnostic theology Yahweh is basically the devil (demiurge) Which is where the Torah came from... Words of a fallen angel... given to moses

edit on 28-5-2013 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon


In gnostic theology Yahweh is basically the devil (demiurge) Which is where the Torah came from... Words of a fallen angel... given to moses

The Apocryphon is making fun of Philo, not agreeing. The wording is similar to Philo, so that a Philo follower would have zero trouble recognizing that his beliefs were being mocked.

I've got a new thread: The Psychology of Evangelism: Different World-views

The weird thing about Judaism is that it is in no way monotheistic. The claim is made to fool people.
edit on 28-5-2013 by pthena because: (no reason given)
edit on 28-5-2013 by pthena because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by pthena
reply to post by Akragon


In gnostic theology Yahweh is basically the devil (demiurge) Which is where the Torah came from... Words of a fallen angel... given to moses

The Apocryphon is making fun of Philo, not agreeing. The wording is similar to Philo, so that a Philo follower would have zero trouble recognizing that his beliefs were being mocked.

I've got a new thread: The Psychology of Evangelism: Different World-views


Do you really think the motivation for the writer of this book was to make fun of another belief?

I don't see it honestly...

I''l take a look over your thread...




posted on May, 28 2013 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon


motivation for the writer of this book was to make fun of another belief?

Sure, anytime someone is teaching something new, they must compare and contrast with already existing systems of belief. Even without parody as a primary motive, parody does become part of the contrast.



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by pthena
reply to post by Akragon


motivation for the writer of this book was to make fun of another belief?

Sure, anytime someone is teaching something new, they must compare and contrast with already existing systems of belief. Even without parody as a primary motive, parody does become part of the contrast.


Interesting...

I had a conversation about this book with Adjensen, in which his major confliction was that the book makes the creator out to be somewhat of a moron...

Personally I find that idea to be quite valid considering the confliction between the OT God and what Jesus preached...

IF OT God was the Father of Jesus... He did not understand love, yet Jesus did... but Jesus claims he learned everything he knows from his Father... Makes no sense at all...

In another part in this book the demiurge says I am a Jealous God, same as the OT God... Obviously that's where the idea came from, but it also presents a good argument.... IF God is Jealous, who is he Jealous of?

This book is apparently dated to the early second century at the earliest... So its quite possible it came from a close Follower of John... and perhaps it was written before Revelation (which I personally believe at the time John was suffering some form of dementia)

Both claim to be direct revelation from Jesus himself... Yet revelation is mostly nonsense... where as this book makes more sense to the logical mind then revelation does...

Of course they are different... one is an apocalypse

Nice thread by the way... I don't know how to reply to it, but I S&F'd it...

edit on 28-5-2013 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon


IF God is Jealous, who is he Jealous of?

You've heard of personality cults. Yahweh uses the classic separation from social contact tactic. "Don't make treaties with others. Don't learn about their religions. In fact, just to be safe, kill everyone who isn't you(plural)"

Obviously, Yahweh is jealous of the other gods.

Revelation is a war propaganda piece, written by a Parthian(Babylonian) pseudo-Christian author. The purpose is to get Christians to side with a Parthian/Jewish attempt to fight Rome.

The book is kind of lost in time for the simple fact that the Parthian side of the plot never panned out. That's why people can't figure it out. Nowhere in history does there exist the episode where the Parthians, Roman Christians, and Jews formed an alliance and defeated Rome.
edit on 28-5-2013 by pthena because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by jhill76
 


There is no such thing as "being off path". If God wants us to deal with something he'll throw it directly on our path to deal with. I think some ignore signs due to fear but people are generally scared of change and God understands that being a part of all. Everything will be ok, if all understood that they wouldn't feel the need to go out and control



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 01:58 AM
link   
reply to post by jhill76
 



Why Father must use destruction to get mans attention,
Absence of Love it is enough....



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 08:06 AM
link   
reply to post by jhill76
 


Who do you claim to be?





new topics
top topics
 
3
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join