ok thnx for that my lady, now - you do understand that with this god there is no so called evolution, we were made then at the beginning as we are now, complete, it's not like starting off as apes and becming human homo sapiens along the way, unless your stating that the evolution is not of man but his intellect?i
wasn't a big star treck fan so i'm not sure of this.

but if it is the knowledge of man you speak of i will digress, if it's mans nature - well that has remained the same since the beginning, his moral character has not gotten any better since eden. and he does not need a physical encounter with a devil to tempt him to act as he does, so to me prime directive doesn't work for this god.

If he wanted us to be spiritual beings he could have let us all onto what he wanted instead of a few chosen prophets and others, would it help if we could all see into the nxt world as they did? you betcha, but for his reasons he does not allow this except for a chosen few. he says in one breath - be like children and you will enter in and in another breath for us to put away childish things and grow up??he tells us of our past to let the door slam down behind our heels on these things and then states to tell others of whats hapened in the past. he tells us to not eat of sacrificed animals and then says eat my flesh and drink my blood. and he does not hold to this prime directive thing as to do what ever it takes not to interfere, he interfers when ever he wishes and does what ever he wants, and he surely would not sacrifice himself as you describe prime directive is supposed to do. " even to save their lives and/or their ship" this god is not going to go down with his ship.

I imagine you're speaking of the god of Christian understanding. I speak of a god of all understanding.

Spiritual Evolution.

why thats quite the imagination you have there my lady, and your intuitive answer is correct. so your speaking of the quintessential god - "prime directive?" the interplanetary pope? the gosmos of the cosmos? the universal unitarian diety? The KING of KLINGon's, the viccar of Vulcans? and how did this spiritual evolvement-of-lution begin?

IF this gosmos of the cosmos does exist... I haven't the foggiest of how it/he/she began. All I have are those few bits and pieces of information/intuition I gather and observe. They're only fragments. My pieces could only be completed with addition/collaboration of others'.

If we are the explorers, sent to this physical world to gather knowledge only available in this dimension, it would perhaps explain the temporary amnesia to the complete picture. A breach of this "Prime Directive" would distract from the full experience of the physical assignment.

I only call it evolution for lack of a better name. Our soul MUST have good reason to come into this willingly.

I don't know how it began or why...

It had to have started somewhere.

nice, i see you must share the same brain as our friend smiless - thats not a bad thing - hahaha

Indeed...

I take it as a good thing.

me to my dear - awi dekata

I believe that the text states that he died for the sins of the world. Since anges are within the heavenly realm, I don't think they are afforded salvation. There's nothing that would indicate that either an angel or power & principality is worthy, or would even consider repentance. Once they rebelled - they were given over to it.



I like to keep the terms separate, as not to lead into the discussion of what the "will" is, as it's been discussed ad infinitum through the threads. I would think the term "free will" should be barred from the posts, or always understood that will here means choice, as opposed to desire.



I didn't mean to refer to you as a Pantheist - and I don't remember what I was referencing. It was likely a mere reference to a theoretical idea that I was stating comes from Pantheistic thought. I'll have to look closer at the post when I finish this.



I'm not sure if it's tommorrow yet,so I'll just leave it at that.

Jeannie;

Tribo was refering to will in his post as "choice", as that was the original term I had used.

Yes - though I think there's a fine line to cross. I'm a big fan of Monty Python and the Coen Brothers, but I have no use for Penn & Teller or George Carlin.

Having given this a little more thought - I cannot disagree with you in terms of how you have presented it. In actuality, I have not been in disagreement with the fact that since God knew/knows it all from the end to the beginning, I would say that I am in full agreement with you on his being responsible for all that has/is/will take place. Having said that - I think what we've been divergent on is this idea that there was somehow a better way to have gone about it.
As though what we have available to us in this life could have somehow been improved without sacrificing that to which we hold dear. So I leave you with this question. How do you percieve it being "better designed" without the sacrifice of that which we hold dear?



For me, I take the testimony of the authors at their word. If Isaiah tells me the word of God came to him - why should i assume he lied. What purpose would it have served Peter or John to have fabricated what they witnessed of Jesus' ministry, since they were fully convinced that Jesus was God? Seems self defeating to have invented stories about him when they were fully aware that He had risen from the dead, and came to them after the resurrection. And Luke - who was not an eye-witness, but an historian, would have had to ignored the testimonies of everyone he'd interviewed, and been an avid student of the torah to have come up with his two books. And in addition to this - the idea of God being totally ominscient and having the power of his creation would had to have this completely suspended and watch - powerlessly while the testimony he wished to convey to man be that corrupted as to not be what he intended. Absurd to consider any of these "conspiracies" to be valid. It's just easier to claim atheism through ignorance, and not bother to pursue the topic at all.

The personal experience is just a matter of support to something that is logical to me. While it is true that these experiences would have been the same had I not had faith in god - the same holds true for those who somehow think that random chance is responsible for the events in their lives when there is no way they can discount or disprove it is not - in fact - God working in their lives to bring about the outcomes of these events. A mere disbelief in God does no more to disprove his existance than a belief in him proves he does. However - we have this book called the bible which, through it's own claim, is a testimony of his existance, and his walking upon this earth. What "text" exists for any other philosophy that does not find it's origin from man alone? The Koran has Mohammed as it's sole inspirator, and after he died, he did not come back to do anything for those who followed him. In addition to this - the Koran changed and modified itself to suit his lifestyle. Not something the bible does. If the bible is anything, it is consistant in it's claims, which was done through men who wrote it through inspiration over thousands of years. I would say by that mere fact alone - it at least calls out to be read, if not just to see if it's possibly true. It is folly to hold onto the claim that it is pure fiction having never even read it. That I find to be a great puzzlement.

Eljay is not a fan of Penn & Teller or George Carlin. Now why does that not surprise me? Well George Carlin died fairly recently so in honor, I give you his accurate "exegesis" of the Ten Commandments.

GEORGE CARLIN ON THE 10 COMMANDMENTS
from "Complaints and Grievances" (HBO special)

Here is my problem with the ten commandments- why exactly are there 10?

You simply do not need ten. The list of ten commandments was artificially and deliberately inflated to get it up to ten. Here's what happened:

About 5,000 years ago a bunch of religious and political hustlers got together to try to figure out how to control people and keep them in line. They knew people were basically stupid and would believe anything they were told, so they announced that God had given them some commandments, up on a mountain, when no one was around.

Well let me ask you this- when they were making this **** up, why did they pick 10? Why not 9 or 11? I'll tell you why- because 10 sound official. Ten sounds important! Ten is the basis for the decimal system, it's a decade, it's a psychologically satisfying number (the top ten, the ten most wanted, the ten best dressed). So having ten commandments was really a marketing decision! It is clearly a bull**** list. It's a political document artificially inflated to sell better. I will now show you how you can reduce the number of commandments and come up with a list that's a little more workable and logical. I am going to use the Roman Catholic version because those were the ones I was taught as a little boy.

Let's start with the first three:

I AM THE LORD THY GOD THOU SHALT NOT HAVE STRANGE GODS BEFORE ME

THOU SHALT NOT TAKE THE NAME OF THE LORD THY GOD IN VAIN

THOU SHALT KEEP HOLY THE SABBATH

Right off the bat the first three are pure bull****. Sabbath day? Lord's name? strange gods? Spooky language! Designed to scare and control primitive people. In no way does superstitious nonsense like this apply to the lives of intelligent civilized humans in the 21st century. So now we're down to 7. Next:

HONOR THY FATHER AND MOTHER

Obedience, respect for authority. Just another name for controlling people. The truth is that obedience and respect shouldn't be automatic. They should be earned and based on the parent's performance. Some parents deserve respect, but most of them don't, period. You're down to six.

Now in the interest of logic, something religion is very uncomfortable with, we're going to jump around the list a little bit.

THOU SHALT NOT STEAL

THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS

Stealing and lying. Well actually, these two both prohibit the same kind of behavior- dishonesty. So you don't really need two you combine them and call the commandment "thou shalt not be dishonest". And suddenly you're down to 5.

And as long as we're combining I have two others that belong together:

THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT ADULTRY

THOU SHALT NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR'S WIFE

Once again, these two prohibit the same type of behavior. In this case it is marital infidelity. The difference is- coveting takes place in the mind. But I don't think you should outlaw fantasizing about someone else's wife because what is a guy gonna think about when he's waxing his carrot? But, marital infidelity is a good idea so we're gonna keep this one and call it "thou shalt not be unfaithful". And suddenly we're down to four.

But when you think about it, honesty and infidelity are really part of the same overall value so, in truth, you could combine the two honesty commandments with the two fidelity commandments and give them simpler language, positive language instead of negative language and call the whole thing "thou shalt always be honest and faithful" and we're down to 3.

THOU SHALT NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR"S GOODS

This one is just plain ****in' stupid. Coveting your neighbor's goods is what keeps the economy going! Your neighbor gets a vibrator that plays "o come o ye faithful", and you want one too! Coveting creates jobs, so leave it alone. You throw out coveting and you're down to 2 now- the big honesty and fidelity commandment and the one we haven't talked about yet:

THOU SHALT NOT KILL

Murder. But when you think about it, religion has never really had a big problem with murder. More people have been killed in the name of god than for any other reason. All you have to do is look at Northern Ireland, Cashmire, the Inquisition, the Crusades, and the World Trade Center to see how seriously the religious folks take thou shalt not kill. The more devout they are, the more they see murder as being negotiable. It depends on who's doin the killin' and who's gettin' killed. So, with all of this in mind, I give you my revised list of the two commandments:

Thou shalt always be honest and faithful to the provider of thy nookie.

&

Thou shalt try real hard not to kill anyone, unless of course they pray to a different invisible man than you.

Two is all you need; Moses could have carried them down the hill in his ****in' pocket. I wouldn't mind those folks in Alabama posting them on the courthouse wall, as long as they provided one additional commandment:

Thou shalt keep thy religion to thyself.

George Carlin was famous for pointing out obvious societal traits that had the absolute least possible logic. Of course his humor gets rejected.

"Logic" tends to fly in the face of "faith".

It is easy to be sinless because sin is a term that is confined and owned by religious doctrine and it boils down to mean "disobedience" of some conception of an all mighty creator who wrote laws and commandments and stated that "the wages of sin is death."

Therefore, unless you subscribe to that religious doctrine, the term "sin" is meaningless and a moot point. You can only be a "sinner" if you buy lock stock and barrel, the religious implication's of that term and subscribe to Christianity or any similar religious doctrine that uses the term "sin."

But if you are a free agent or atheist you cannot think of yourself as a "sinner" because the word has no meaning.

The idea of righteousness is basically an opinion.

Yes, you can be righteous in this moment.

This moment is all that truly exists. It matters not what you did yesterday. If you made a mistake and learned from it, and if you move to the next step of becoming a better person, and if you forgive yourself and vow to do and be better and hold that intention, you can indeed be righteous in that moment.

That is what repentance and forgiveness is all about. When you truly repent unto yourself and vow to change, then you are a new and righteous person at that moment. You are washed clean and forgiven if your repentance is sincere. You are new because you have truly changed and you have been forgiven and you have forgiven yourself.

Each moment is all that exists. What and who you are in this moment is the true you.

You Tribo are mistaken. Anyone can be righteous and even without sin in the moment, which is all that truly exists.

jb

Righteousness...

Another one of those subjective nouns.

Righteous according to an infinite number of variables.

An individual CAN be righteous according to self.

Thnks for your "opinion" my goddess, it's always nice to hear from you -


so are you saying then that who i was before i woke up this morning or went to bed is not or was not my true me? the person who raised children in what is now not the present was not the true me? that i can only be the true me as i type these words?

i know your stance all to well on sin my lady, thats why i included for you the word ""wrong"".

well i work parttime at a jail and they all blame the other guy or it wasn't them. what we do on this earth is up to us. what we eat for breakfast and everything . what we do with our knowledge or lack thereof is up to us . we mostly know between right and wrong and when people lose respect for themselves , children, and families they make bad decs ions for themselves and their loved ones.that's why the jails are full, all the players on these dating sites and the jerk having a bad day down the street who wants to lower us to his level.i just figure , everday above ground is a good one .

as a friend of mine once said " if you think your having a bad day - just try missing one."

What I am saying is the person you are exists in the present moment. Everything exists in the present moment.

The person you were when you were a child is not the person you are today. The person you were yesterday is not same person you are this moment.

Lets say you could divide into two people this moment. Call it an artificial person, one who is exactly like you in every way. You go into a copy machine and you create a double who is just like you in every way, same mind, same experiences.

Then, separate these two people. Let them live apart. Let them live apart with two different points of view, separate observation points of view, separate in mind and experience.

In no time at all you will acquire different experiences, different knowledge, maybe even different opinions on things.
You will still be very much alike, but you will have different experience and you will be different in your person because of it.

I did not mean to say that this is your true spiritual self, or your true self in the higher spiritual sense, but in consideration of the incarnated person you have become because your experiences make you who you are in every moment.

It is not really time that makes you who you are, but your experiences. When you have new experiences, you change and you are not the same total "person" you were before.

I hope this helps you understand what I mean.

jb