Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
.Everyone is good or evil by choice.
- influences have a bearing on the outcome of a spirits development - being self determined can be a struggle in itself.
It is the same then as it is now, Satan is an illusion, a fiction. Jesus was saying that then and I am repeating it now.If Satan wasn't just another creation of the all powerful god then why does the very word of that god even mention satan?
-
..Everyone is good or evil by choice.
- influences have a bearing on the outcome of a spirits development - being self determined can be a struggle in itself.
How can a person learn to choose good and reject evil, triumph, and enter the everlasting without a struggle?
You like to speak of the spoken religion of antiquity. It's really not about what you say, it's about what you do.
Life is in the blood, in the doing.
.You like to speak of the spoken religion of antiquity. It's really not about what you say, it's about what you do.
.It is the same then as it is now, Satan is an illusion, a fiction. Jesus was saying that then and I am repeating it now.If Satan wasn't just another creation of the all powerful god then why does the very word of that god even mention satan?
Matthew 4:10 is the tenth verse of the fourth chapter of the Gospel of Matthew in the New Testament. Jesus has rebuffed two earlier temptations by Satan. The devil has thus transported Jesus to the top of a great mountain and offered him control of the world to Jesus if he agrees to worship him. In this verse Jesus rejects this temptation.[1]
Satan only exists in the minds of those who want to believe it.
.and offered him control of the world to Jesus if he agrees to worship him.
This is not a contradiction of your post just a clarification of the term “evil”take a break hob, triumph over evil is not what is spoken but what is accomplished ...
-
-
Maybe as a child but not as an adult.Everyone is good or evil by choice.
- influences have a bearing on the outcome of a spirits development - being self determined can be a struggle in itself.
Kind of like godsIt is the same then as it is now, Satan is an illusion, a fiction. Jesus was saying that then and I am repeating it now.If Satan wasn't just another creation of the all powerful god then why does the very word of that god even mention satan?
Matthew 4:10 is the tenth verse of the fourth chapter of the Gospel of Matthew in the New Testament. Jesus has rebuffed two earlier temptations by Satan. The devil has thus transported Jesus to the top of a great mountain and offered him control of the world to Jesus if he agrees to worship him. In this verse Jesus rejects this temptation.[1]
Satan only exists in the minds of those who want to believe it.
This is not a contradiction of your post just a clarification of the term “evil”take a break hob, triumph over evil is not what is spoken but what is accomplished ...
I personally do not believe “evil” exists in the real world. It seems to define poor moral values, but it does not exist as an entity.
en·ti·ty
noun
a thing with distinct and independent existence.
..,.,.,.,..,.,.,.,.,.,..,.,.,.,
Definition of evil (Entry 1 of 3)
1a: morally reprehensible : SINFUL, WICKED
an evil impulse
b: arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct
a person of evil reputation
2aarchaic : INFERIOR
b: causing discomfort or repulsion : OFFENSIVE
an evil odor
c: DISAGREEABLE
woke late and in an evil temper
3a: causing harm : PERNICIOUS
the evil institution of slavery
b: marked by misfortune : UNLUCKY
Evil | Definition of Evil by Merriam-Webster
evil
adjective
morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked:
evil deeds;
an evil life.
harmful; detrimental:
evil laws.
noun
that which is evil; evil quality, intention, or conduct:
to choose the lesser of two evils.
the force in nature that governs and gives rise to wickedness and sin.
the wicked or immoral part of someone or something:
The evil in his nature has destroyed the good.
adverb
in an evil manner; badly; ill:
It went evil with him.
Evil | Definition of Evil at Dictionary.com
.I personally do not believe “evil” exists in the real world. It seems to define poor moral values, but it does not exist as an entity.
I don't have a real perception of God that I can point to and then provide some sort of definition. That in itself is a kind of anthropomorphic hubris that sabotages everything that comes after in the same way the idea that God chooses a people and gets angry and so on does. Your "innate matrix subordinate to mere function of constant creation" is intellectually interesting, but I think it ultimately fails for the same reason. It inappropriately confines God to the realm of the human. However, though we are very far away from it, I think we can at least make out the path toward an understanding of the Divine.First, I don't claim universality. Second, if by "universal symbols" you mean something akin to the Platonic "forms," apples and oranges. I can have a concept of a "chair" that is universal in the sense everyone who knows what a chair is shares the same universal conception, but that concept is dependent on the particular conceptualizer, something completely different from the kind of universality God claims, for we wouldn't say that if man didn't exist, God wouldn't exist. Or would we?
But do you ask the same question when in relationship to various people,
is there a 'you' interacting or mere mindless reaction in a swamp of universal symbols?
Nicely put,
that's why I prefer discussing the G-dly,
more with the non-religious folks, the questions are more direct and daring.
In case you perceive 'god' as an innate matrix subordinate to mere function of constant creation, as perceived by a limited subjective mind - then indeed we could assume 'god' was only a function of subjective perception - the opposite of universal consciousness. But that is exactly the question I've addressed to you - if you perceive the ideal universal in comparison to a CHAIR, what makes YOU more than a chair?
I believe in sublimation. I am willing to consider the idea of blasphemy. Lying about love, for example, may be blasphemous and perhaps it's the religious truth of that that makes the end of Mozart's opera, when the demons pull Don Giovanni into hell for his many blasphemies, capable of sublimating our souls. Thus, I would say our ideals come from true Art.Is that the expression of will above mindless matter and the urges of biology?
Where do your ideals come from?
From that 'chair' perception?
My perception of God is based upon the physical, biological and moral laws of nature. I believe it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence and I believe that there must be a first cause and that that first cause must be eternal and unchanging which means beyond energy and matter. I believe that Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create. This is a life‑breeding universe because the constant presence of mind made it so and imbued His creation with His attributes. My perception of God is that God is infinite logic, infinite truth, infinite intelligence, infinite wisdom, infinite knowledge, infinite love, infinite patience, infinite justice, infinite mercy, infinite kindness and infinite goodness. I am not saying God has those attributes. I am saying God is those attributes. The polar opposite of those attributes are not extant. They only exist as the negation of the attribute. And that's how I know God is good and compassionate. Because good and compassion exist.I don't have a real perception of God that I can point to and then provide some sort of definition. That in itself is a kind of anthropomorphic hubris that sabotages everything that comes after in the same way the idea that God chooses a people and gets angry and so on does. Your "innate matrix subordinate to mere function of constant creation" is intellectually interesting, but I think it ultimately fails for the same reason. It inappropriately confines God to the realm of the human. However, though we are very far away from it, I think we can at least make out the path toward an understanding of the Divine.First, I don't claim universality. Second, if by "universal symbols" you mean something akin to the Platonic "forms," apples and oranges. I can have a concept of a "chair" that is universal in the sense everyone who knows what a chair is shares the same universal conception, but that concept is dependent on the particular conceptualizer, something completely different from the kind of universality God claims, for we wouldn't say that if man didn't exist, God wouldn't exist. Or would we?
But do you ask the same question when in relationship to various people,
is there a 'you' interacting or mere mindless reaction in a swamp of universal symbols?
Nicely put,
that's why I prefer discussing the G-dly,
more with the non-religious folks, the questions are more direct and daring.
In case you perceive 'god' as an innate matrix subordinate to mere function of constant creation, as perceived by a limited subjective mind - then indeed we could assume 'god' was only a function of subjective perception - the opposite of universal consciousness. But that is exactly the question I've addressed to you - if you perceive the ideal universal in comparison to a CHAIR, what makes YOU more than a chair?
I believe in sublimation. I am willing to consider the idea of blasphemy. Lying about love, for example, may be blasphemous and perhaps it's the religious truth of that that makes the end of Mozart's opera, when the demons pull Don Giovanni into hell for his many blasphemies, capable of sublimating our souls. Thus, I would say our ideals come from true Art.Is that the expression of will above mindless matter and the urges of biology?
Where do your ideals come from?
From that 'chair' perception?
.I don't have a real perception of God that I can point to and then provide some sort of definition. That in itself is a kind of anthropomorphic hubris that sabotages everything that comes after in the same way the idea that God chooses a people and gets angry and so on does. Your "innate matrix subordinate to mere function of constant creation" is intellectually interesting, but I think it ultimately fails for the same reason. It inappropriately confines God to the realm of the human. However, though we are very far away from it, I think we can at least make out the path toward an understanding of the Divine.First, I don't claim universality. Second, if by "universal symbols" you mean something akin to the Platonic "forms," apples and oranges. I can have a concept of a "chair" that is universal in the sense everyone who knows what a chair is shares the same universal conception, but that concept is dependent on the particular conceptualizer, something completely different from the kind of universality God claims, for we wouldn't say that if man didn't exist, God wouldn't exist. Or would we?
But do you ask the same question when in relationship to various people,
is there a 'you' interacting or mere mindless reaction in a swamp of universal symbols?
Nicely put,
that's why I prefer discussing the G-dly,
more with the non-religious folks, the questions are more direct and daring.
In case you perceive 'god' as an innate matrix subordinate to mere function of constant creation, as perceived by a limited subjective mind - then indeed we could assume 'god' was only a function of subjective perception - the opposite of universal consciousness. But that is exactly the question I've addressed to you - if you perceive the ideal universal in comparison to a CHAIR, what makes YOU more than a chair?
I believe in sublimation. I am willing to consider the idea of blasphemy. Lying about love, for example, may be blasphemous and perhaps it's the religious truth of that that makes the end of Mozart's opera, when the demons pull Don Giovanni into hell for his many blasphemies, capable of sublimating our souls. Thus, I would say our ideals come from true Art.Is that the expression of will above mindless matter and the urges of biology?
Where do your ideals come from?
From that 'chair' perception?
.I don't have a real perception of God that I can point to and then provide some sort of definition.
the spoken religion of antiquity is not a book and will not disappear with the hard cover the way the desert religions will when their last publication ceases to exist - a proof of authenticity.
24,000 written manuscripts say otherwise.the spoken religion of antiquity is not a book and will not disappear with the hard cover the way the desert religions will when their last publication ceases to exist - a proof of authenticity.
My friend. The fallacies are not the written words of the Bible. The fallacies are the perverse ignorant superstitious interpretations of those words that began when christianity was usurped assimilated and perverted by rome in 325 ce. and the edible triune mangod was unleashed on the world. A false counterfeit substitute almighty, yet edible, pusillanimous Jesus that does not correspond to any real living being ever in existence.
The real message and teaching of the person who was and is the real Jesus, a dedicated Jewish man, about how to obtain victory over evil and achieve everlasting life was buried under a mountain of blasphemy upon which the scarlet beast sits.
This message was not lost. It was hidden in figurative language that diverts and curses the real enemy. The message has never been corrupted by anyone. It exists as new and unadulterated as the first day it was spoken in a realm above the grasp of the damned. Thats proof of authenticity.
You can Google world floods and you will find that a number of floods have occurred. Some of these floods occurred as the great ice sheet that covered the top 1/3 of our planet started melting. The norther ice sheet continues to melt today. This continuing event is now tagged to “climate change”.aren't you a thumper - what exactly then was the event of the great flood ... about. at least - in your book. was it a mistake. oops.
-You can Google world floods and you will find that a number of floods have occurred. Some of these floods occurred as the great ice sheet that covered the top 1/3 of our planet started melting. The norther ice sheet continues to melt today. This continuing event is now tagged to “climate change”.aren't you a thumper - what exactly then was the event of the great flood ... about. at least - in your book. was it a mistake. oops.
At the time of Noah’s flood, the size of our planet was unknown and what they saw was all there was. A great flood in their region appeared to be the great flood.
That is thought through but 1) is it necessary to combine "creator" and, say, "goodness" into a single entity? 2) isn't calling something like logic "infinite" only obscurantism?My perception of God is based upon the physical, biological and moral laws of nature. I believe it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence and I believe that there must be a first cause and that that first cause must be eternal and unchanging which means beyond energy and matter. I believe that Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create. This is a life‑breeding universe because the constant presence of mind made it so and imbued His creation with His attributes. My perception of God is that God is infinite logic, infinite truth, infinite intelligence, infinite wisdom, infinite knowledge, infinite love, infinite patience, infinite justice, infinite mercy, infinite kindness and infinite goodness. I am not saying God has those attributes. I am saying God is those attributes. The polar opposite of those attributes are not extant. They only exist as the negation of the attribute. And that's how I know God is good and compassionate. Because good and compassion exist.I don't have a real perception of God that I can point to and then provide some sort of definition. That in itself is a kind of anthropomorphic hubris that sabotages everything that comes after in the same way the idea that God chooses a people and gets angry and so on does. Your "innate matrix subordinate to mere function of constant creation" is intellectually interesting, but I think it ultimately fails for the same reason. It inappropriately confines God to the realm of the human. However, though we are very far away from it, I think we can at least make out the path toward an understanding of the Divine.First, I don't claim universality. Second, if by "universal symbols" you mean something akin to the Platonic "forms," apples and oranges. I can have a concept of a "chair" that is universal in the sense everyone who knows what a chair is shares the same universal conception, but that concept is dependent on the particular conceptualizer, something completely different from the kind of universality God claims, for we wouldn't say that if man didn't exist, God wouldn't exist. Or would we?
But do you ask the same question when in relationship to various people,
is there a 'you' interacting or mere mindless reaction in a swamp of universal symbols?
Nicely put,
that's why I prefer discussing the G-dly,
more with the non-religious folks, the questions are more direct and daring.
In case you perceive 'god' as an innate matrix subordinate to mere function of constant creation, as perceived by a limited subjective mind - then indeed we could assume 'god' was only a function of subjective perception - the opposite of universal consciousness. But that is exactly the question I've addressed to you - if you perceive the ideal universal in comparison to a CHAIR, what makes YOU more than a chair?
I believe in sublimation. I am willing to consider the idea of blasphemy. Lying about love, for example, may be blasphemous and perhaps it's the religious truth of that that makes the end of Mozart's opera, when the demons pull Don Giovanni into hell for his many blasphemies, capable of sublimating our souls. Thus, I would say our ideals come from true Art.Is that the expression of will above mindless matter and the urges of biology?
Where do your ideals come from?
From that 'chair' perception?
1) Yes because existence is good. The same goes for every other extant attribute. Remember coins have two sides but only one coin existsThat is thought through but 1) is it necessary to combine "creator" and, say, "goodness" into a single entity? 2) isn't calling something like logic "infinite" only obscurantism?My perception of God is based upon the physical, biological and moral laws of nature. I believe it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence and I believe that there must be a first cause and that that first cause must be eternal and unchanging which means beyond energy and matter. I believe that Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create. This is a life‑breeding universe because the constant presence of mind made it so and imbued His creation with His attributes. My perception of God is that God is infinite logic, infinite truth, infinite intelligence, infinite wisdom, infinite knowledge, infinite love, infinite patience, infinite justice, infinite mercy, infinite kindness and infinite goodness. I am not saying God has those attributes. I am saying God is those attributes. The polar opposite of those attributes are not extant. They only exist as the negation of the attribute. And that's how I know God is good and compassionate. Because good and compassion exist.I don't have a real perception of God that I can point to and then provide some sort of definition. That in itself is a kind of anthropomorphic hubris that sabotages everything that comes after in the same way the idea that God chooses a people and gets angry and so on does. Your "innate matrix subordinate to mere function of constant creation" is intellectually interesting, but I think it ultimately fails for the same reason. It inappropriately confines God to the realm of the human. However, though we are very far away from it, I think we can at least make out the path toward an understanding of the Divine.First, I don't claim universality. Second, if by "universal symbols" you mean something akin to the Platonic "forms," apples and oranges. I can have a concept of a "chair" that is universal in the sense everyone who knows what a chair is shares the same universal conception, but that concept is dependent on the particular conceptualizer, something completely different from the kind of universality God claims, for we wouldn't say that if man didn't exist, God wouldn't exist. Or would we?
But do you ask the same question when in relationship to various people,
is there a 'you' interacting or mere mindless reaction in a swamp of universal symbols?
Nicely put,
that's why I prefer discussing the G-dly,
more with the non-religious folks, the questions are more direct and daring.
In case you perceive 'god' as an innate matrix subordinate to mere function of constant creation, as perceived by a limited subjective mind - then indeed we could assume 'god' was only a function of subjective perception - the opposite of universal consciousness. But that is exactly the question I've addressed to you - if you perceive the ideal universal in comparison to a CHAIR, what makes YOU more than a chair?
I believe in sublimation. I am willing to consider the idea of blasphemy. Lying about love, for example, may be blasphemous and perhaps it's the religious truth of that that makes the end of Mozart's opera, when the demons pull Don Giovanni into hell for his many blasphemies, capable of sublimating our souls. Thus, I would say our ideals come from true Art.Is that the expression of will above mindless matter and the urges of biology?
Where do your ideals come from?
From that 'chair' perception?
The Bolsheviks murdered entire classes of Russian Christians, including, specifically, the intelligent. That the purpose was dysgenic is shown by the fact they also murdered the children. Evil enough, in my book, but justifiable in a Darwinian sense to the depraved and monstrous. But here's what makes it truly evil: the Bolsheviks went out of their way, when slaughtering, to execute the children before and in the presence of the parents before executing the parents in order to ensure maximum agony--a gratuitous act so vile it defies comprehension.I have been going in circles trying to envision “evil” as a human trait and I refused to accept the concept, until I learned this---
A government, the Israeli government using its IDF sniper teams to single out and murder Palestinian children.
That is “evil” in intent and purpose, through and through, to the core of the soul.
Wasn't there also something about a VEIL being rent somewhere? And there is the whole LIVE blood sacrifice the Levites claimed the right to demand of everyone's first-born. LOL, am I getting carried away?
Just now I noticed the odd anagrammatic relationship between VILE | EVIL | LEVI | => Levi being the Babylonian Pharisee who brought the tribe of Judah under the Talmudic yoke, on whom Israel, joining humanity, turned its back--the direct religious ancestor of the BoLshEVIks.
