oops double entry must have clicked wrong...

Quickstepper you have the spectacular skills of a politician ignoring the questions while seeing it from the same view.

I repented from being Christian, in my view it is blasphemy and calling on the name of jesus with all of your lungs, withought feel him in your heart. What I am saying here is that there are many good Crhsitians out there that follow Christ, but it's obvious that too many christians go around encourgaing others to follow him when they themselves don't follow him or demonstrate knowledge and acceptance of his lessons.

So far as Devil worship goes...that is one of the most tragic misconceptions in Christianity. Calling everything else devil worship is calling the following of Chrit's lessons as they were given in other parts of the world Devil worship. I think I have seen enough devil worship from proffessed devout Christians anyway...

Well darn if they own sin I'm going to have to re-think how I describe wrong action in a way they can understand...

But if they own that word, could we take back all of our words they stole from us, and our holidays too while we are at it?

Hey JB I like almost all of your entries you seem to make a lot of sense!

I disagree about sin. Although I agree with the concept of what you are saying somewhat, I think sin is a useful definition of wrong action. Wrong action would be one that hurts another being without cause (such as self defense when neccesary). Althought many view sin in the ancient way as a action against "God" which would actually be an action against the laws that man states are those of God, I view sin as a useful term to refer to "wrong action" even thought wrong action itself may not be easily defined due to difference in views.

Your pictures show a pretty woman, and include a range of pictures that give someone a fairly good idea what you look like.

Your profile statements seem to effectively state what you offer to another in a relationship so far as being a loving or attentive partner. Your statements about what you are disinterested in serve to denounce bad behavior without stating exactly what kind of behavior you honestly like. I know what gentlemanly behavior means to me, but what does it mean to you?

Just as a thought you might consider adding some more information about particular things that you like so far as activities, art, music, or whatever else you have an interest in in your daily life. This gives those that are compatible and like the same things a good starting point so far as things to talk about when they try to contact you, or indication whether they should.

All just thoughts, it's a nice profile and feel free if you desire to critique mine in fairness. :)

I agree....any reasearch we do will offer hours of interesting reading, conceptual food for thought, ideas and theories about religion or the state of the world, the times, or even the teachings without giving any authority to known fact. It's a very personal search for knowledge and can be entertaining or enlightening.

So far as the libary of Alexandra I see that as one of the most tragic losses that we have experienced as a race cutting us off from our own history so that we can not know. Withought the library itself being a symbol I see the tragedy as a symbol of loss for the human race and demonstration that the powers that existed in that time did not want us to know something.

Actually most of what I have discussed here is based on biblical teachings in an effort to make it easier for Christians to understand what I am saying. Considering that I am a non-Christian I think I have been doing my best to share ideas in a way that can be easily understood from a Christian perspective.

I have repeatedly made statements affirming that I respect the Christian right to follow Christianity while pointing out that certain behavior sets adopted by certain groups or sects within the overall Christian congregation are dirrectly opposing the teachings of Christ per my understanding of them.

I have personally both as a Chriistian and a non Christian spent many hours, days, and weeks at a time delving into the bible, it's verses in multiple versions of the bible, and additional texts both from modern and ancient people concerning the bible, it's contents, Jesus, "God" the times of the bible and whatever else I could find that is related in my own search to understand them from a Christian and Non-Christian perspective. To me truth is more important than the ownership or origin of fact.

So far as my statements to Christians or my urges for them to re-consider their point of view please note that I have encouraged you and others to follow Christ as you claim to. This has been my only request. You are welcome to embrace or reject Christianity but if you wish to claim to follow Christ I think it is more prudent to demonstrate the following of his teachings than the following of church or the claims of man.

Hmmm one thing I wonder about is this....Although sensors and interaction would be needed as well as some physical control I believe that the idea of android versus creation may be a stumbling block.

I say this because when I say it should be able to have physical control such as plugging itself in this is in the interest of helping it reach sentience by having to make choices.

The need for form for people to recognize it or be able to psychologically accept it as a sentient being is another subject altogether. For those truly interested in the philisophical point of sentience versus non the form of the creation would be of little impact while the reality of what it means would be more important. Stage one could well consist of creating a creation that has the potential to demonstrate sentience, and stage two is that once sentience was demonstrated in a way that objective observers could accept build it a shell or body that those less objective would react better to, and letting the creation decide if it wished to transplant into this more percievably friendly form, or if not a "brother or sister" creation could be in this shell from the start.

This all assumes that the "I AM" team would understand and agree that the creation should first be "powered up" once the cotainment body and programming was complete so that it would start much like an infant or child with a functioning body simply needing time to experience. Another approach would be for it to have a partially enabled body and for it's mental development to coincide with it's physical ability improvements. By my opinion since the creation would be unlikely to grow with our technology this would be easier done through off on or power adjustments for physical ability.

The reason I bring all of this up is to seperate the two issues and make it clear that I believe the matter of sentience is most important with or without acceptance from the average person with prejudice views.

I like to believe that I approach spirituality and religion from the position of an adult. Although I am imperfect in my spiritual enlightenment I try to embrace this while rejecting or trying to improve the less enlightened parts of my behavior or belief.

When I made my choice it was a matter of accepting responsibility for myself. I have responsibility for my actions without blaming any higher power, or without giving anyone my burdens. My point here has been that telling someone they must follow your version of "God" or "Christ" or be called enemy or reminded that they will fry in your view of "Hell" is a psychological attack, and implies by it's nature that you are demanding that others follow your god or jesus that you OWN in your mind because you believe that only your thoughts about them are correct.

I personally believe that this turns more people away from this narrow view of "God" and Jesus Christ as you know him by showing a hateful seperatist side of personal belief.

From what I understand I have good company in my opinion that although we respect the right of others to believe differently we believe that this negative boundary or attempt to "enslave" the souls of others with your personal view of god as Sinful and possesive.

Once when some local women were going from door to door to share the love of Christ with people when they knocked on my door they asked if they could discuss Christ and God with me.

The couple consisted of an older woman and a younger woman. I told them I was non-christian and that I only asked that they respected my right to have beliefs, and my difference of opinion about those beliefs from theirs without being preached to from their perspective. (This is paraphrased without remembering exact words.) The younger woman seemed confused, whereas the older woman nodded and smiled. This nod and smile to me is the indication of one who understands and respects the true path of enlightenment. That is without having to understand respecting the spiritual beliefs of others and loving one's fellow human beings because we are all brothers and sisters.

I believe the spreading of religion and the sharing of one's joyful enlightenment is meant only for those that need it. This would be those that lack any path of spirituality or joy of feeling a spark of enlightenment. All true spiritual paths can be a blessed or horrible thing depending on their application and the way they are approached or used. I personally believe the key in religious acceptance and enlightment is accepting that we are all the same in the eyes of any higher being and it is our treatment of others rather than our proffessed opinion or wish that others accept our views.

Quickstepper I would like to know if you know what the Pharisees were? Do you know what Jesus is said to have said about them in Matthew 23? What do you think all of this means, and how would it be applied to the modern world of Christians?

LMAO no....

I just "get it". I seem to know how a lot of things work, and basically if you do have an I AM team full of programmers you also need a psychologist that understands infant development. However, since psychologists might not like the whole sentience thing considering the robot insane you have to fire them halfway through and replace them with a spiritualigist or theological philosopher to finish the job.

LMAO

Oh I think we are on the same page but...

So far as the basic instinct desire I think it should be fully conscious and unconscious....such as...If it has let's say an eight hour battery...it should want bit of a charge around 4 hours runtime left. (Remember rather than a useful creation, we are going for a creation more likely to evolve into sentience). Now the desire to eat at this point would be a light one, and would have to use an algorythem to compare how hungry it is to how important what it is doing is with full knowledge of how long it would take it to get to a power source.

At three hours left the balance should have shifted to where rather than a slight awareness that it is half depleted it is not consciously aware that it has three hours left.

Two hours, a primary awareness that is constant and hard for the creation to ignore.

At one hour it would have to continuously put high proiority flags on what it was doing to avoid plugging in.

At thirty minutes it would be forced by the instinct program to plug in, and the only way to avoid this would be to re-write it's own instinct program which it would instintually know to do only if death was desired.

This would simulate the food cycle prossess that we and animals share on a very short time frame. I believe this may help speed it along towards sentience because it would have to consciously plug in to live just as we must eat.

I personally believe for this to work well it has to have a balance, something that it desires other than plugging in that could distract it. Some kind of task or activity that is important to the creation so that it is reluctant to stop so it can go plug in. It should like it enough so that it's likely to hit that one hour mark quite often, and maybe go past that to thirty minutes until it overides and goes to plug in with a passion like someone in an eating frenzy.

What good does it do to try to spread acceptance of Jesus when psych threat tactics oppose his teachings of love?

nothing about acceptable if you ask me I detest almost everything the RCC did, but it was the church in power, it held all of the cards, and it took possesion of or destroyed most religions texts. I know it isn't likely they actually kept them but i have always had a fantasy that they would release the information from their vaults. :)

The only thing that made sense...was I spouting jibberish in my fatigue again?

ok because the nature of this forum is to allow and not ban trolls that will break down information, twist and turn it, and vomit it back up if you need specific help you are going to have to exchange emails with me or get on my im list so I can teach you to do effective research.

That said...I will say this for everyone's benefit...

To look up information sitting where you are now reading this on a web search is amazingly easy. In a library a librarian can help but it has to be a non christian college library, or public library. A Christian College library will lead you the wrong direction every last time.

The amount of information to search through is staggering. I do check christian websites sometimes but usually avoid them, because they don't like to tell you about any text they disagree with.

Keywords to search are...Bible, creation, origin, original, direct translation, biblical texts, jesus ancient texts, Christ ancient texts, book of Judas, book of Mary, Jesus and herod, life of jesus ancient texts, Jesus and mary, Jesus Egypt (wildcard).

Read things carefully, once you do find a text source some text may be confusing. Read it with a grain of salt making sure you understand you have no idea what the context is or WHO it is they are talking about (so far I have five marys in the life of Jesus and which is which can be unclear at times). If you are going to read additional texts it's a good idea to find a source that explains language and phrases used in those times because it can change the whole meaning. As in...

If I read SON OF JOSEPH in the bible it is meant as Descendent of Joseph which may or may not be the actual son of Joseph. I don't understand this myself but that is why the bible is suspect the language usage of that time was nothing like modern language usage so it can completely change the meaning of a passage.

A while ago i started doing a detail search and I found that even more interesting I suggest it as a matter of fun for anyone that likes history. Check a part of the bible you want to know more about, a story in the bible, or key figures and do a search on that instead of the whole bible. A closely related story to the bible that could be considered to have everything or nothing to do with Jesus is a search for example on herod, Joseph, Mary (Marriame). Sometimes I wish that the RCC would release all of the texts it has so people could fit all of these pieces together. Even more Jewish texts would help.

Well looking for love never did me much good in reality.
Claiming to give up on women while showing interest in them never did me any good.

now that I'm cautious and i'm not so sure there is a woman out there for me...I'm not doing any better...

So in short looking too hard for someone can certainly result in you getting involved with the wrong person...but not looking at all means you are ignoring the ones that could be there...

Best policy is to pay attention to who someone is, and get to know someone. Lightning can strike anywhere at any time but we don't control when or where.

Sorry Tribo I'm failing here I lack any cataloged information about my research because I never thought anyone would care what I found. I had someone from these lists get really angry with me because I gave them information that would lead them to what I was talking about without actually providing texts by name and date ect ect ect as if I had an instant catalog list next to me...

There are a ton of books out there about it all...but I am unsure what they are I only know that Pro Christian or Anti Christian sites are biased and one needs a true historical view for accuracy.

If someone has already done it then they at least have a general idea assuming they did it from a fair perspective rather than a propoganda perspective.

Researching a bible in the interest of proving or disproving accuracy is pointless. Researching the bible objectively to understand it's full history and creation is by far a better practice.

So far as different versions there are SO many...To understand what the bible is one has to read quite a bit about it's history from an objective point of view, so which websites, books, or sources one chooses can be precarious I recommend reading a mix of them to make sure one gets the truth rather than propoganda good or bad.

For true understanding of the story of Jesus Christ and his life, times, and teachings I recommend a person read a good version of the bible, (I personally recommend people avoid the KJV since there is documented historical proof that it was doctored and inaccurate and simple comparsisons of it to other versions demonstrate this)as well as outside texts including additional gospels from other disciples and followers written in those times. Regardless of whether the offical church denounces or embraces these texts they all have the same validity from a period in time as views or stories. Each person must make their own choice about what they embrace or reject as matching what they believe or feel in their heart.

So far as catagorizing or labeling particular texts as appropriate or not I believe it's folly unless there is historical and scientific proof other than opposing texts disproving them.

So far as why I think about this and why I encourage people to fully research everything...I believe it is the personal duty of every Christian that follows the bible as a text, and anyone else who wishes to discuss the life and times of Jesus or the teachings in the bible to do what they can to HONESTLY research the reality of the bible and the concepts in it without prejudice.

RCC is the Roman catholic Church which controlled Christianity, the bible, and the evolution of Christianity for centuries.

when I say "the church" in the historical sense this is usually what I mean as a generalization.

Regardless of our opinions about particulars I think we all feel that way. Anytime anyone falls in love with someone they may or may not throw away their entire rulebook. When it happens, it just happens.

Now Art, in some ways we agree and in others we disagree...

First, I am a subscriber to the theory that I am ok and you are ok. This means that those who are able to accept the reality of a holiday while having their own personal views about them are ok with me.

Yes, Easter is specifically a PAGAN holiday. Of this there is documented proof and the way the church has handled it is silly in an attempt to make conversions easy. Now symbology exists without being owned by any religion. When we say pagan in the modern world when labeling an ancient custom we refer to it in it's original sense. Regardless of modern conception Pagan meant country folk. This is the way the farmers, people in small villages and remote communities celebrated a spring festival. If you want to get into mayday, beltane (or beltain), spring fes, ect that is a different matter. Easter itself is about life, rebirth, and the cycle of life. It is a celebration of prosperity and fertility. If viewed correctly it has absolutely nothing to do with religion, but has to do with intent, and wishes for oneself, the ones one loves, or the community. I could care less whether a Christian chooses to boycot the holiday or embrace it, so long as they realistically understand it's origins rather than hide their hand in the sand. This is far from being a religious point, this has to do with my wish for people to accept history rather than make it up.

Many (perhaps most) of the catholic saints are pagan gods in disguise and this was done for the easy conversion from paganism to Christianity. The Catholic church has propogated this since it's beginnings. Each time someone prays to a saint they are praying to someone other than god, and per the christian belief system praying to a false god and by other beliefs praying to a pagan god, whereas to a Catholic they are speaking to a saint asking for help in delivering their prayers to god. The way one views an action, and the intent in one's heart can indeed change the nature of the act.

Now halloween or All hallows eve...Some say satanic or devil worship, while others say it is a celebration of spirit. Please refrain from confusing Samhain as a festival and Halloween or All Hallows Eve. (translated as All (set aside to be made holy) eve. Now how this transformation took place I am going to skip because for accurate claims I would have to look it up again. Now The practices observed on Halloween as we know it in modern times have to do with neither god or the devil, but relate to spirits, or the souls of the dead. It is a time when the spirits were said to be active. Demons were a feared thing in an ancient remote world without lighting. So people would dress in costumes meant to scare the evil spirits away and carry (turnips I think) that were hollowed out and have candles. Treats as bribery for children to keep them from pulling tricks is representative of day of the dead customs (I believe but didn't look it up) in which plates of food may be put out for deceased relatives. In some parts of the world it was considered that if one did not make these offerings the spirits might pull tricks on the living on this day. Now this is all general concept anyone that wants to understand it all fully look it up and understand it themselves.

Although I agree that the Christians have wrongly borrowed the word Samhain as a name for the Devil this is theft of a word confusing it with OLD SAM which is a completely different concept. SAMHAIN is the name of an ancient Celtic festival that does indeed have "pagan" roots but in this context pagan simply means ancient and pre-christian culture. This has nothing to do with Christianity, or it's devil. This was a harvest festival and regardless of any christian's view of ancient customs or non hebrew culture claiming that SAMHAIN is the Devil or DEVIL worship is quite simply a cultural attack against celtic heritage. Many of the customs practiced at this festival varried very little from the commandments of the OLD PRE CRHISTIAN commandments of god including sacrifice.

Some modern Wiccans do celebrate samhain and although they may recognize different gods, rituals, or practices this still has nothing to do with the Christian Devil which is a former angel of God named Lucifer. Many of the Wiccans that attend Samhain in the modern world would consider sacrificing a cow on a bonfire rather than throwing it on the BBQ after being properly slaughtered and cooking it like anyone else just as barbaric as you would.

Calling SAMHAIN in it's ancient form satanic, or devil worship is cultural slandar against an entire culture and entire herritage, in fact a huge part of the population that has complete or partial celtic herritage.

Love and Light,
Joseph