ok what if just saying what if god follows the following characters at the
same time
1.jesus
2.anti-christ
3.satan
4.god (himself)
that way humanity is cornered god is a entity made to destroy
all evil but if he is that same evil and can regain the power to
bring it back while on the verge of moving on to another universe
prooving “him” or “it” to be a selfish being impersonating
something or someone else who he holds captive out of the
universe we know of also as the mistakes add up “he” or “it”
makes he/itself suffer as payment for any mistakes it’s
high-intellect creations noticed.
I do believe in what I have written to the extent that it makes the most logical sense to me and my own spiritual experiences seem to justify it.
It seems naive to recognize that there is a virtual infinity of galaxies each comprised of a virtual infinity of stars. Orbiting around many stars are planets and many planets with moons orbiting them.
Assuming this vastness to be genuine, it seems inconceivable that this obscure planet that we reside upon is the only thing in this vastness that contains what we experience as consciousness. It makes much more sense to me that to assume that degrees of consciousness permeates the universe of which we are a part and that degrees of consciousness are connected in what is known as a scale of living “being”.
Christ existed as a quality of consciousness reflecting God’s wholeness but just at a lower level so is called “son.” It is like the relationship of High C on the piano to Middle C. It is the same note but an octave apart in vibratory frequency. This degree of wholeness was sacrificed to become scattered in his being like Man and became man in Jesus for the purpose of regaining what was lost while allowing man to follow out of its plight to become his conscious potential. The quality of his life and nature of his death were essential for his purpose. It was always known. There was no mistake. Why is another topic.
I could get references and recommendations from my lady friend and like Data said on Star Trek: “I am functioning within established parameters.”
However though, when the moon is full there is a period of time when a laser like energy radiates from my eyes and smoke starts coming out of my ears. Then the real Darth_A comes into being.
But can you see that Jesus mission on earth may reflect the existence of two distinctly different levels of being signified as heaven and earth of which man should reconcile but cannot as he is. As such he denied temptation even though Liberals of today would frown on such a decision attributing it to a lack of education.
This of course has nothing to do with the legitimacy of my laser eyes.
I haven’t read all the posts, but your first one was intriguing. I have a much more traditional view than you. I always thought Jesus rejected Satan’s offer as an example to show us a divine Son of God could not accept temptation from an evil source. Proof of His Divinity, if you will.
When I see Kentucky I believe I know who this is. I do know of your traditional concerns for what you regard as Christian culture. We do disagree on some things but it’s what makes it interesting. I know I’m very torn on this question. I am in favor of the idea of a free society and do not believe it is possible to sustain one on secular values. A free society I believe requires a common value higher than itself to sustain its freedom and its culture should reflect this value. But how to do it? Exoteric or Cultural Religion falls back to the same level as society as a whole including all its hypocrisy, pettiness and radiating of mixed influences. Hopefully we’ll discuss this at some point.
Don’t forget that at the time of temptation Jesus was still growing and his rejection of temptation furthered his growth. He became worthy of the ability to sacrifice as he did once the spirit entered him. This made him worthy of greater temptation.
This is highly symbolic and suggests Jesus transcending living truth (water) and receiving its good through the Spirit and establishing a connection with the Father. The temptation begins in Matthew 4 and puts this understanding to a test. This is not teaching us what to do as much as establishing his understanding in respect to his being now that the Spirit has entered. I believe it concerns what we ARE more than what we DO.
Religion is necessary to a moral foundation. All cultures had a religion on which they based their moral foundation.
At this time in history some of those people are adopting Christianiy as their religion, which is good in that it tends to tame the savage beast, so to speak. But I do not fall into the category of a convert. I am culturally Christian.
I think you know, Nick, I do not examine the Scriptures as those of you with an intellectual curiosity. I am inclined to get my inspiration from a great many people I listen to and/or read about. Many are secular.
The religion of the West is Christianity. No other culture can make that claim.
“Religion is necessary to a moral foundation. All cultures had a religion on which they based their moral foundation.”
It’s a side note, but I totally disagree with that statement.
Religion has taken ethics and changed it into morality and by doing so removed all meaning. This is because ethic concepts end up being transformed into universal laws that then become discredited due to their universality, which is palinly not true.
Relgion also has a cosmic hidden rule-keeper that will judge you in the afterlife. That means that no one ever has to deal with the consequences in the only real world that there is. Meanwhile, even a sports star has to deal with it if they violate a code of ethics. However, a person can break as many moral codes as they like and never face anything material, as the punishment comes after you are dead, but of course not really.
Following ethics takes a non-religious existentialist attitude to be successful.
This is a very controversial idea. I don’t believe it to be Christianity but Christendom. Since Christianity for me is hidden the point is not important from the political perspective so I agree for arguments sake.
I do urge you to begin a thread on this and I know there are those here like Adlerian that will challenge you. A good thread will have to make people think including me because I confess to being unsure of a lot here.
For example, I agree with the necessity of morals for a free society. A lot of protests against this idea include offense at the phrase “In God we Trust.” I maintain that collective trust in something greater than ourselves is essential for a free society. But for those wishing to ban it, what should it be replaced with? In politics we trust? In good intentions we trust? In Hillary we trust? The one thing that will be agreed upon on the secular level is money. So “In money we trust.” But how is a free society maintained at such a base level especially when questions arise as to its distribution?
I don’t see this intense need to deny the influence of Christianity on the founding of this country.
If tempers are controlled, there are some excellent topics here. I know your interest in politics and if you want to learn what others think, I urge you to organize your thoughts and create a thread either here or in the Social Sciences section which may be more appropriate, I don’t know. I’ll contribute since I’m curious myself as to what others think.
