Aleister Crowley and Both Paul the Apostle and Paul McCartney are Dead

originally posted by: SoulSurfer
a reply to: Seede

That is a very good question. And one that I have been pondering on because people say paul replaced Judas. But let's examine this a moment.

Jesus did not send him away, yet he knew Judas would betray him. Jesus did not personally choose Paul. He chose the original 12.

Jesus as God in the flesh already knew ahead of time that Judas would betray him, but he still chose him.

This scripture gives us a clue.

(John 6:70; see also 13:18.) “Did not I choose you, the Twelve?”

The question is, was Judas forgiven? And was Judas saved in the end? This question needs to be answered. But i still maintain that God does not go back on his word.

Judas was replaced with Matthias in Acts Chp. 1.

15 In those days Peter stood up among the believers (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty) 16 and said, “Brothers and sisters, the Scripture had to be fulfilled in which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus. 17 He was one of our number and shared in our ministry.”

18 (With the payment he received for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. 19 Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)

20 “For,” said Peter, “it is written in the Book of Psalms:


“‘May his place be deserted;
let there be no one to dwell in it,’[c]

and,


“‘May another take his place of leadership.’[d]

21 Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us, 22 beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.”

23 So they nominated two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. 24 Then they prayed, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen 25 to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.” 26 Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.

Paul does not meet the criteria to be an apostle. The criteria is in vs. 21 above.

a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

Judas was replaced with Matthias in Acts Chp. 1.

According to most English bible that is correct, but then we also have some theologians who do not accept this premise as being the perfect will of God. Let me explain a little more.

There is a perfect will of the Creator and then there is a permissive will of the Creator. That is where most theologians become entangled and create denominations. In this case it is written that the eleven apostles cast their lots between two men who were recommended by themselves. In other words it was a closed group that decided all of this upon their own closed group of men who made their own rules. The first rule was that the men they would choose would be to their standards. The second rule would be that they themselves would choose the replacement. There was nothing involved that would show that the Holy Spirit actually did the choosing of the man.

In other words why did the apostles not let Jesus choose? Drawing straws is not the proof that I would desire. Drawing straws or rolling the dice is entirely man's own desire. Why not let God show Himself by His own hand? That was not done.
Do not the scriptures tell us that we can not control the Holy Spirit but the Holy Spirit does as it will? I have never heard or seen where any human can demand from God and that is exactly what these apostles had done. They assumed that by prayer that they could usurp the perfect will of Jesus. Did not Jesus, by His perfect will, personally choose His apostles?

Now it can be argued that these men were full of the Holy Spirit and therefore could do this choosing but that is not true at all. One can still error and be infilled with the Holy Spirit. Did not Peter show this as he denied Jesus three times? Did not Peter show this as he shunned gentiles and was chastised for doing so? Prayer is not always answered with the understanding of men. Even the most righteous of men must accept the permissive will of God. This is the main reason that many people did not accept Matthias as an apostle.

21 Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us, 22 beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.”

Paul does not meet the criteria to be an apostle. The criteria is in vs. 21 above.

Let us now examine your above quotes.
Clement of Rome 30 A.D. - 100 A.D.
Saul/Paul of Tarsus 5 B.C. - 67 A.D.
John Zebedee Apostle 6 A.D. 100 A.D.

All three men were alive at the same time for 37 years. Most people do not know that all three men were close friends and that Clement of Rome was a disciple of Apostle John. But more than this is written that Clement was also a friend of Saul/Paul and that Clement wrote of Saul/Paul.

Paul speaks of Clement in Philippians 4:3 -- "Php 4:3 And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life."

More so it is Clement that speaks of Paul in his Epistle to the Corinthians Chapter five ---

Quote
Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee, and stoned. After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the extreme limit of the west, and suffered martyrdom under the prefects. Thus was he removed from the world, and went into the holy place, having proved himself a striking example of patience.
Unquote

If one were to call Saul/Paul a liar and false prophet then that one must also call the Apostle John and his disciple Clement also a liar. How then can some theologians not be compelled to reconsider Saul/Paul as being the chosen one of the Christ Jesus? So in lite of this you may understand how the theologians differ in the interpretation of this matter. Your choice.

a reply to: Seede

In this case it is written that the eleven apostles cast their lots between two men who were recommended by themselves. In other words it was a closed group that decided all of this upon their own closed group of men who made their own rules. The first rule was that the men they would choose would be to their standards. The second rule would be that they themselves would choose the replacement. There was nothing involved that would show that the Holy Spirit actually did the choosing of the man.

24 Then they prayed, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen 25 to take over this apostolic ministry,

Well Seede, I guess "theologians" who can't stand to admit there is a liar and false apostle in the book they call "holy, infallible, and inerrant" have to do some sort of apologetic hoops to get around the fact that
1) the person who was to be a replacement had to have been an eyewitness to Jesus' ministry, death, and resurrection....which Paul wasn't.

2) the other men Jesus chose actually did pray to the Holy Spirit.

I'm going with the one's Jesus actually CHOSE while He was picking His disciples, as hearing clearly from the HS (minus Judas). I think by that time, Peter had learned his lesson, as well.

You are very well read, Seede. That is a given. You know a whole bunch about theological history. Still doesn't change the fact that there are many, many, MANY, people who have seen through Paul's rubbish....and they still love Jesus.

Do we need Paul to be saved? Cause that's really what it seems people such as yourself or Chester seem to think. Or, do we all HAVE to believe the WHOLE bible as the truth (and accept Paul)....or we're going to miss the peace train to Heaven?
Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

Do we need Paul to be saved? Cause that's really what it seems people such as yourself or Chester seem to think. Or, do we all HAVE to believe the WHOLE bible as the truth (and accept Paul)....or we're going to miss the peace train to Heaven? Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Please don't misunderstand me. I do try to be fair in my belief and in this case I find nothing that signifies that Saul/Paul was an outcast from the James congregation.

No. We need no man except the Christ Jesus to be saved and Paul has never written that we do. I believe my bible to be true but also I believe that all that is in my bible does not pertain to me directly. There is much in the bible that is not of my covenant with the Christ Jesus. But that does not make it untrue in the many eras and cultures that are written in my bible.

I do appreciate you and your threads and posts but in this case I do have to disagree with the Paul nonsense that pricks the hearts of so many.

a reply to: Seede

I do try to be fair in my belief and in this case I find nothing that signifies that Saul/Paul was an outcast from the James congregation.

Take a good hard look at 1 John...

a reply to: Seede

I do appreciate you and your threads and posts but in this case I do have to disagree with the Paul nonsense that pricks the hearts of so many.

First, thank you for the appreciation. I don't know why outing Paul would "prick" anyone's heart. Unless, Paul is more important to the Christian than Jesus is. I would think the loyalty would be to Jesus and HIS words first, not Paul's.
The fact that it does irritate Christians to show Paul's doctrine is contradictory, and what has led Christendom into a divided ditch, says volumes.
I can respect your knowledge, Seede. You have many more years on me and much more study. I go with my gut and the prompting of the HS.
Even John told us to "test the spirits". I've somewhat reached the conclusion that there are two voices speaking in the bible. One is the enemy, the other the truth.
I spent many years "defending" God, the bible, etc., etc. Obnoxiously so, lol. So, when you are anyone else on here does that, believe me....I get it. Thing is, why would the true God need someone or anyone for that matter, to defend Him?
Why does Paul need anyone to defend him?
It's kinda stupid, when you step back and look at it logically. We are all arguing and debating BECAUSE of ONE man....Saul of Tarsus. Well, in there's Yahweh, YHWH, Jehovah....spell it however you want, I don't see him as good anymore.
So, here you have it.....the division I keep pointing out. It's not because of "theologians" or someone else who tampered with Paul's writings. It's straight up because Paul is a slick, double speaking, contradictory, wolf in sheep's clothing.
You could spend hrs on ATS reading old threads, new threads, whathaveyou.....and lose count of how many people on just this site alone have come to the same conclusion. Most don't go out of their way to point it out, but they will mention it. Interesting, don't you think? One man has caused all this controversy, yet Christians still defend him.

a reply to: SoulSurfer

: What exactly happened to both Paul the apostle, and Paul McCartney?

Would that not depend upon ones belief? Of course we realize that both men are physically dead but then there are some that believe the spirit of people are not dead.

What does the bible say? Actually the bible does not tell us explicitly about either men. That is why we study the letters of the Prophets and Apostles in trying to understand the afterlife. That is if there is and afterlife. But to know what the afterlife of either Paul is, is not really clear.

What do I believe? I believe as, some science has revealed, that the mind is detached from the brain. The terrestrial brain of a person contains the receptors which control the terrestrial body. This brain is controlled by an energy source which is the mind. Both are one and yet both are independent. Now realize that I am not making this up but have read this in medical articles which I have not kept in file. This verifies that some do believe that the brain is physicality and the mind is an unknown energy source. What this source is, is the entire solution to afterlife.

Is this energy source [mind] the spirit of the terrestrial man and does this energy source have an independent structure assigned to each terrestrial body? Does the mind [spirit] have eternal consciousness or is it simply a terrestrial source of energy which is ever changing? Is the mind [spirit] of celestial substance or terrestrial substance? What does the bible say?

The bible tells us [through various scriptures] that this source of energy [mind] is an everlasting conscious independent entity and that it does indeed control the terrestrial brain. That is if the terrestrial receptors of the brain are not damaged or missing. This is not believed or revealed to most bible students and for that reason we have many doctrines of many denominations in religions.

Various apostles of Jesus tell us that both Paul's have met their death of the body and that their mind [spirit] have been judged as to their status in the afterlife. What that judgment of each men is, is not revealed but if either man has been judged righteous then that one, or both, will now be in the kingdom of heaven as a conscious source of energy and will then be given a new everlasting celestial body [covering].

But all of this is simply what I believe and there are probably millions of other theories of others which are just as important to them as mine is to me. Why do I believe science in this case? Because medical science does agree with the teachings of Jesus even though we have differences in words. The energy source [mind] is everlasting regardless of its worth to the Creator and in that respect I do believe that both Paul's have the same experience in death as do all people. Nevertheless it is not revealed to us where their containment is located.

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: SoulSurfer

: What exactly happened to both Paul the apostle, and Paul McCartney?

Would that not depend upon ones belief? Of course we realize that both men are physically dead but then there are some that believe the spirit of people are not dead.

What does the bible say? Actually the bible does not tell us explicitly about either men. That is why we study the letters of the Prophets and Apostles in trying to understand the afterlife. That is if there is and afterlife. But to know what the afterlife of either Paul is, is not really clear.

What do I believe? I believe as, some science has revealed, that the mind is detached from the brain. The terrestrial brain of a person contains the receptors which control the terrestrial body. This brain is controlled by an energy source which is the mind. Both are one and yet both are independent. Now realize that I am not making this up but have read this in medical articles which I have not kept in file. This verifies that some do believe that the brain is physicality and the mind is an unknown energy source. What this source is, is the entire solution to afterlife.

Is this energy source [mind] the spirit of the terrestrial man and does this energy source have an independent structure assigned to each terrestrial body? Does the mind [spirit] have eternal consciousness or is it simply a terrestrial source of energy which is ever changing? Is the mind [spirit] of celestial substance or terrestrial substance? What does the bible say?

The bible tells us [through various scriptures] that this source of energy [mind] is an everlasting conscious independent entity and that it does indeed control the terrestrial brain. That is if the terrestrial receptors of the brain are not damaged or missing. This is not believed or revealed to most bible students and for that reason we have many doctrines of many denominations in religions.

Various apostles of Jesus tell us that both Paul's have met their death of the body and that their mind [spirit] have been judged as to their status in the afterlife. What that judgment of each men is, is not revealed but if either man has been judged righteous then that one, or both, will now be in the kingdom of heaven as a conscious source of energy and will then be given a new everlasting celestial body [covering].

But all of this is simply what I believe and there are probably millions of other theories of others which are just as important to them as mine is to me. Why do I believe science in this case? Because medical science does agree with the teachings of Jesus even though we have differences in words. The energy source [mind] is everlasting regardless of its worth to the Creator and in that respect I do believe that both Paul's have the same experience in death as do all people. Nevertheless it is not revealed to us where their containment is located.

Seede, are you familiar with what the Gnostic's believed?

a reply to: Seede

Is this energy source [mind] the spirit of the terrestrial man and does this energy source have an independent structure assigned to each terrestrial body? Does the mind [spirit] have eternal consciousness or is it simply a terrestrial source of energy which is ever changing? Is the mind [spirit] of celestial substance or terrestrial substance? What does the bible say?

Why does it only have to be "what the bible says?" Is it because you hold it as the ultimate source of truth?? Cause, seems you also go to other sources for your "truth". Right? I mean, all those ancient theologians aren't in the bible, yet you hold their words as truth.
What IF, there are sources of TRUTH out there, that aren't included in the Canon of the bible? Then what? (what IF the Gnostics had it correct....that the "god of this world" is evil and has us all trapped here? I mean, just step back for one second and look at this world. It is beautiful....and will kill you dead, too. We are born to die. Why? Because some deity decided he would only "contend" with us for 120 years? Why? Why does the god of the bible need to go to such theatrics, through a selected group of people, to show the world who he is? Why that route? What....he couldn't have thought up something better than that? I mean, we're supposedly talking about GOD here, right? One who is omnipotent, omniscience, and holy. Yet, the best he could do was pick a certain group of people to use to show everyone who he was? Nah.
What IF, you are possibly wrong?
Not saying you are, but just saying....it's a possibility, right? Are you able to adjust your thinking on truth, if perhaps you found out what you thought was "TRUE" all these years...isn't?
I also have a question for you....and honestly, I respect your input.
Does God speak audibly to you? Has He in the past? If so, what did He say?

a reply to: Seede

No. We need no man except the Christ Jesus to be saved and Paul has never written that we do.

No, Paul just made it very clear that it was "HIS GOSPEL"....his favorite pronouns were ME, MINE, I, Me, Mine, I, I ,I , I ,I
ad nausea. Funny how a man who actually (supposedly) encountered Jesus on a wilderness road, then spent 3 years learning only from "him", would be so full of himself that he couldn't shut up about himself....not to mention that the correlation between PAUL spending 3 years supposedly "learning" from "Christ" is the same amount of time that Jesus spent doing His ministry (while still walking this planet). Go figure. Isn't it "Satan" who tries so hard to imitate everything the True God does?
Me thinks the false god (Yahweh) and the false apostle (Paul), are in cahoots with one another. Just my .02 cents.

a reply to: Akragon

Though when one brings such things up in a discussion with a Christian, things get ugly fast...
i've been insulted, degraded, called satan or a follower of... along with every name in the book by so called Christians

You and me both....too many times to count. Kinda makes it obvious of the fact that you're hitting a "truth nerve", huh? One they don't want to hear, anyway.

a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

Why does it only have to be "what the bible says?" Is it because you hold it as the ultimate source of truth?? Cause, seems you also go to other sources for your "truth". Right? I mean, all those ancient theologians aren't in the bible, yet you hold their words as truth. Text

Not necessarily do I cling to one source. Most all of the NT was played out in the first 150 years after Jesus was dead but the average Christian does not venture into that era. Why so? I believe it is a matter of how one is educated. Most all Christians will cling to the Roman views of Christianity and in doing so are robbed of the Jewish aspect of the NT. Let me try to explain somewhat.

Most all of America reads the various Greek translations of the NT in the various English interpretations but very few will ever read the same Greek translations in the Jewish interpretations. Why is that? Were not the letters of the NT Jewish for the most part? The reason is simply a matter of education. The Christian Jews have a far different understanding not only between themselves but also from the gentile Christians. Even so the various Jewish non orthodox denominations also have the very same.

So what has that to do with why I use other sources along with the NT? It is simply a matter of verification of the NT sources. Not all of the NT is understood without outside sources and that creates new doctrines and new denominations and new divisions of false information. The Orthodox Jew will use oral Torah along with Written Torah. Why? For that very reason that i stated. A truth should never change except to add more truth. The average Gentile can interpret Torah in his/her understanding and be totally wrong. They should have oral Torah to teach them the truth of interpretation but most will not use outside information to learn the truth. They rely upon their own understanding and become confused.

The exact same thing happens with the NT except that it becomes more complicated than the Tanach. How so? The NT is given to us in the majority Greek MSS. But that is not the original autographs of the NT language. So the Christian does not have an oral NT of the Hebrew interpretations. They rely upon the Greek to English rendition and not the original Hebrew/Aramaic to Greek to English interpretations. So what then does one do? They should be taught the Hebrew interpretations of the Greek to English. But where does a lay person go to learn this? The answer is to study the Christian Jewish interpretations of the NT and that entails much outside literature.

Now there are some Jewish NT bibles that can be helpful to the average Christian reader. My favorite Jewish NT is The Jewish New Testament by David H. Stern. I use it in conjunction with the 1611 KJV. and the Jewish Time Line Encyclopedia as well as other outside literature. My understanding is that the OT and the NT both do not have all of the story and that there are tons of literature that can be used to help in knowledge and understanding.

Now that does not mean that I have the edge of the truth. I also take in consideration that all literature can contain untruth or misunderstanding. Almost all authors will slant their own understanding in their work and become opinionated. That may be permissible in fiction but certainly not in non fiction. But where can you find such perfection? Well. you must try different avenues of various authors and compare against the master copy. [So to speak]. Even then is the master draft true? In this case of the NT being the mater draft we are in the realm of theology where the truth is questioned. We actually can not produce proof of a true master draft. We have the faith in the NT being word for word true but just as in outside literature we simply have no proof.

Of the thousands of NT Greek MSS we take the majority of the MSS that agree, somewhat, and use those as the master draft. Even then they agree in interpretation but not word for word and what of the many MSS which are not accepted in the majority? Some of the rejects are even used in bibles today and add nothing but more confusion. The NT has no mater draft and is in itself in need of repair.

Now as for the Creator being aloof from His creation is a matter of how you look at what you have been taught. I always revert back to Torah and realize that the Creator gave the entire creation the gift of self government. As He gave this task to us, the creation was perfect. No death or pain or unhappiness existed. All that you see today is the result of our own doing. If we had governed ourselves as instructed then you would not see the mess we have today.

Does God speak to me audibly. Long story short. No, not today. But in 1945 and again in 1983 yes. Am I crazy? I could be by the standards of modern medical science. Could I be wrong? Absolutely I can be as wrong as wrong can be. Can I change my opinion? Yes I can and have many times over. I am full of self but love to read and listen. God Bless --

a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

First off....I'm sending you huge cyber hug. You are a pretty cool man, Seede. I really like the thought you put into things.
Now, I wanted to point out this that you said...
"No death or pain or unhappiness existed. All that you see today is the result of our own doing. If we had governed ourselves as instructed then you would not see the mess we have today."

Ok, with that premise, according to what you stated above....then I have a question (again), WHY would a totally loving God, knowing all things from beginning to end, allow what we see happening today?
I used to think it was all due to "self-will". My opinion (or thoughts) have changed dramatically since then. I now see a not so "benign" god pulling the shots down here.
There is NO reason for animals to kill one another. Nothing benign would create that scenario. So, like I said before....whoever thought up the paradigms of how this world should function, isn't benign himself.
But hey, that's just me.

On top of that little bit of my brain, you said once in another thread (in referring to your life), that it was "miserable".
Can I ask you to ponder something? If this world was made "perfect" in the beginning, then WHY is it not? I'm not talking about the "fall" either. I'm just referring to the world as we know it and how it operates.
For example, today...as I was leaving my house (I live in a rural neighborhood), I saw a deer dead by the side of the road. It was killed pretty recently, by a vehicle. There were probably 6 buzzards there, around the carcass, pulling flesh and blood off that deer's body.
I actually felt nauseous, when seeing it at first. My next thought was, "hey, those birds were DESIGNED to eat dead stuff". Yea, it's pretty efficient...I know. Yet, my next thought was, "why?". Why would a "loving Creator" design a world that needed such disgusting things? Do you know why?
(oh, and the biblical answer via Paul is not good enough), lol.

a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

Why would a "loving Creator" design a world that needed such disgusting things? Do you know why? (oh, and the biblical answer via Paul is not good enough), lol.

Well, I really don't have all the answers in life but here is what I believe. I believe that the Creator is not what I believed He was some years ago. This love thing is blown all out of proportion in that the Creator hates as well as loves. He is not all just love. If He were simply all love then He would not have created a hell. That is the main reason that many people don't believe in a hell. My understanding from religion is that the Creator is as hateful as He is loving. Is that bad? No it is not bad at all.

I had a dear old friend who passed away recently and we were childhood friends who always disagreed in theology. [Especially the bible] He came from a large Catholic family and I came from a large protestant and Jewish family. Really funny how life is when I look back on it. This friend of mine eventually became a protestant evangelical in his adult life and about the same time I became a student of Judaic Nazarene belief. Now that is hard to believe but hardly anyone could tell that change in both of us. I would have taken a bullet for that man and I am sure he would have done the same for me. We were brothers who became separated in WWII and after the war found ourselves living in Arizona and Nebraska. We sent weekly tapes to each other till he passed away.

My friend developed a bad heart and sent me a fair well tape several days before he died and in that tape he explained some things that he felt had to be said. He told me that he did not like me but that he loved me. He did not like me for messing around with his God but he loved me as a brother. I had never heard that said before and it floored me that anyone actually felt that way. My friend taught me that God is the same way. He loves us but He doesn't like us in many things that we do. That changed my life and as I sat one day reading one of your threads It came to me what my friend taught me. It taught me that Paul was a scoundrel and maybe God did not like what Paul did but that He loved Paul nevertheless. Is that what judgment is all about? Does God let us govern ourselves but does not like many of us but loves us anyway?

I don't see the glass as half empty. I see the glass as half full. I don't see death as the end but I see death as the beginning. God takes temporary life only to restore it with permanent life. We don't need philosophers but we need each other in this short trip that we are on. We may dislike what others do but at the same time we love them. We don't condemn them in judgment but learn to love them and share knowledge. Everything in the scriptures can be a lesson if we learn how to listen and love. Any way thanks for listening to an old guy. Didn't mean to preach. Just a thought.
God Bless

In a foot note -- In the literature of 2nd Enoch it is written that there is a great paddock in the celestial realm for all of the animal kingdom and that the Creator will judge the good from the evil in that kingdom also. The deer that you saw in death will have its day just as we shall have our day. I believe that to be true and it comforts me to believe that.

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

Why would a "loving Creator" design a world that needed such disgusting things? Do you know why? (oh, and the biblical answer via Paul is not good enough), lol.

Well, I really don't have all the answers in life but here is what I believe. I believe that the Creator is not what I believed He was some years ago. This love thing is blown all out of proportion in that the Creator hates as well as loves. He is not all just love. If He were simply all love then He would not have created a hell. That is the main reason that many people don't believe in a hell. My understanding from religion is that the Creator is as hateful as He is loving. Is that bad? No it is not bad at all.

I had a dear old friend who passed away recently and we were childhood friends who always disagreed in theology. [Especially the bible] He came from a large Catholic family and I came from a large protestant and Jewish family. Really funny how life is when I look back on it. This friend of mine eventually became a protestant evangelical in his adult life and about the same time I became a student of Judaic Nazarene belief. Now that is hard to believe but hardly anyone could tell that change in both of us. I would have taken a bullet for that man and I am sure he would have done the same for me. We were brothers who became separated in WWII and after the war found ourselves living in Arizona and Nebraska. We sent weekly tapes to each other till he passed away.

My friend developed a bad heart and sent me a fair well tape several days before he died and in that tape he explained some things that he felt had to be said. He told me that he did not like me but that he loved me. He did not like me for messing around with his God but he loved me as a brother. I had never heard that said before and it floored me that anyone actually felt that way. My friend taught me that God is the same way. He loves us but He doesn't like us in many things that we do. That changed my life and as I sat one day reading one of your threads It came to me what my friend taught me. It taught me that Paul was a scoundrel and maybe God did not like what Paul did but that He loved Paul nevertheless. Is that what judgment is all about? Does God let us govern ourselves but does not like many of us but loves us anyway?

I don't see the glass as half empty. I see the glass as half full. I don't see death as the end but I see death as the beginning. God takes temporary life only to restore it with permanent life. We don't need philosophers but we need each other in this short trip that we are on. We may dislike what others do but at the same time we love them. We don't condemn them in judgment but learn to love them and share knowledge. Everything in the scriptures can be a lesson if we learn how to listen and love. Any way thanks for listening to an old guy. Didn't mean to preach. Just a thought.
God Bless

In a foot note -- In the literature of 2nd Enoch it is written that there is a great paddock in the celestial realm for all of the animal kingdom and that the Creator will judge the good from the evil in that kingdom also. The deer that you saw in death will have its day just as we shall have our day. I believe that to be true and it comforts me to believe that.

You are an interesting fellow, Seede. Thank you for sharing the story of your friend. Yea, there are people in my world who I love but don't like a lot of the time. To have a friend like you did is something, isn't it? I honestly hope that when we exit these "meat suits", there is something even better than what we "hoped". I know I've experienced that "something"....even if it was muted due to being in this realm. I can only imagine what it will be like when the brakes are off, lol.
I don't know if God actually "hates". Well, maybe. I know I hate with a passion, what we do to innocent animals here. I also hate with a passion, evil done to anyone....esp. the defenseless. So...who knows?
I still can't stand Paul, though.

This world makes me sad...a lot. I don't see it as beautiful or joyous anymore. I know there are beautiful things in it and there are joyous moments...but all in all, it's permeated with suffering, pain, destruction, death, and sadness.
What ya'll see as my "rants"...are really my anger at all of that pain. I feel that animals pain, I feel that little child's pain, the lonely elderly's, the sick and infirmed, the suicidal, etc., and unfortunately, I also deal with my own. It's hard. Really, really, hard.
So, I come on here and give ya'll hell, lol. No, actually I'm just working it out in my own way. I'm kinda a "come out swinging" sort of girl. Been that way my whole life. Lordy, you should have seen me when I was on my "evangelical, save everyone for Jesus, streak". I meant well...I really did, lol.
Take care and bless you too.