DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Love God Only
HTML https://lovegodonly.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Daily Living
*****************************************************
#Post#: 11829--------------------------------------------------
One Flesh
By: Kerry Date: April 3, 2016, 2:14 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Jesus said:
Matthew 19:6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh.
What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put
asunder.
This cannot refer to what men call marriage, can it? God is not
marrying people. People are deciding to marry, and religious
and government authorities are making rules about it. But God
is not necessarily involved in it.
This cannot refer to the physical state, can it? How can two
people become "one flesh" in physical terms? They are still two
bodies. This tells me the two becoming "one flesh" refers to a
spiritual state and only God can make this happen.
#Post#: 11830--------------------------------------------------
Re: Re: One Flesh
By: KerimF Date: April 3, 2016, 10:44 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Kerry link=topic=814.msg11829#msg11829
date=1459710868]
Jesus said:
Matthew 19:6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh.
What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put
asunder.
[/quote]
If Jesus means, by this, a spiritual state, He would say "...
but one" instead of "... but one flesh", as He says "I and my
Father are one".
Jesus already knows that worldly marriage and the Divine Love
are different. A marriage is a formal deal (as divorce) that any
two persons (not necessarily man and woman) are allowed, by
their community/system (religious and/or political), to make and
live (till perhaps they end it by a divorce). In other words,
marriage has nothing to do with the human living soul that one
or both of the married couple may have or not. Therefore, an
accepted marriage by the community needs to be based on a
certain LAW, not necessarily on Love (spiritually speaking).
But Jesus reminds the married couple that they cannot take full
advantage of their marriage (including its pleasures) if they
cannot see themselves as being one flesh (for life) though it is
split in two. If they are created for each other, after marriage
each will have 4 eyes, 4 ears... etc. ;) And if any organ in
them is hurt for example, all their other ones try their best to
overcome the trouble, much like the parts of one body do to each
other.
On the other hand, when two persons accept being unified by the
Divine Love (of the Holy Spirit and this has nothing to do with
sex and breeding), they are actually unified from Heaven for
having each a human living soul in the first place. And,
practically speaking, the two would be seen by any outsider as
having one will/power, like the Father and Jesus are one by the
Holy Spirit.
Please don't worry, if most of what I said here doesn't fit your
view of life ;D
#Post#: 11831--------------------------------------------------
Re: Re: One Flesh
By: Kerry Date: April 3, 2016, 11:12 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=KerimF link=topic=1066.msg11830#msg11830
date=1459741447]
If Jesus means, by this, a spiritual state, He would say "...
but one" instead of "... but one flesh", as He says "I and my
Father are one".[/quote]It depends on how we read Genesis.
Here is the context:
Matthew 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not
read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male
and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother,
and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What
therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
"The Man" or "h'adam" in Hebrew was both male and female before
being divided.
Genesis 1:27 So God <elohim, female noun with plural ending>
created man <h'adam or "the man"> in his <"his" doesn't really
fit but is the English word used> own image, in the image of God
created he him; male and female created he them.
And who said that about a man leaving his father and mother? We
can't say it was God unless we say Adam was a prophet speaking
the words of God. I think he was speaking as a prophet.
Genesis 2:23 And Adam <just Adam here, not h'adam> said, This
is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be
called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and
shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
Thus we can see that Jesus is talking about returning to the
Edenic state, where beings are neither male nor female but both
male and female. Paul also speaks similarly later:
Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither
bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all
one in Christ Jesus.
There is one Body of Christ, of which Jesus is the Head.
[quote]Jesus already knows that worldly marriage and the Divine
Love are different. A marriage is a formal deal (as divorce)
that any two persons (not necessarily man and woman) are
allowed, by their community/system (religious and/or political),
to make and live (till perhaps they end it by a divorce). In
other words, marriage has nothing to do with the human living
soul that one or both of the married couple may have or not.
Therefore, an accepted marriage by the community needs to be
based on a certain LAW, not necessarily on Love (spiritually
speaking).[/quote]In general, I agree.
[quote]But Jesus reminds the married couple that they cannot
take full advantage of their marriage (including its pleasures)
if they cannot see themselves as being one flesh (for life)
though it is split in two. If they are created for each other,
after marriage each will have 4 eyes, 4 ears... etc. ;) And if
any organ in them is hurt for example, all their other ones try
their best to overcome the trouble, much like the parts of one
body do to each other.
On the other hand, when two persons accept being unified by the
Divine Love (of the Holy Spirit and this has nothing to do with
sex and breeding), they are actually unified from Heaven for
having each a human living soul in the first place. And,
practically speaking, the two would be seen by any outsider as
having one will/power, like the Father and Jesus are one by the
Holy Spirit.[/quote]
Few attain this state now. Many are "married " according to
the laws of men; and this is a good thing if it encourages them
to work towards the state of Divine Love. However if they fail,
the bond is not permanent since God did not unite them.
The Jews then ask about divorce.
7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a
writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your
hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the
beginning it was not so.
If a couple is not joined by Divine Love and men have hard
hearts, I think it may be better for them to divorce their
wives. I cannot see that God has joined them.
#Post#: 11833--------------------------------------------------
Re: One Flesh
By: KerimF Date: April 4, 2016, 12:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
To me in the least, Genesis and all other teachings (said of God
or not) that are not mentioned clearly by Jesus Christ are not
addressed to me ;) But I also understand that some, if not all,
of them are likely important to most people in the world who
need knowing/learning how to better take care of their flesh and
their communities.
The Body of Christ is formed spiritually but I am not sure about
the Head, because I can't see in the realm of the Divine Love
any sign of the worldly masters/followers game. I would be
surprised if Jesus doesn't agree with me on this ;)
About the divorce, many couples may live it, even while they
live together. So the divorce in itself is not wrong; it is like
a body hit by an accident or a serious illness. This body may be
recovered/healed or not. But when a divorced person (while the
ex-partner is alive) re-starts his life with a new partner
(though he/she has the right to do according to most, if not
all, rules), this would be a sign that this person is created as
a survival being who, therefore, doesn't mind using some others
in his life... as in marriage or in any other legal deal, at
best.
#Post#: 11834--------------------------------------------------
Re: One Flesh
By: Kerry Date: April 4, 2016, 5:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=KerimF link=topic=1066.msg11833#msg11833
date=1459748337]
To me in the least, Genesis and all other teachings (said of God
or not) that are not mentioned clearly by Jesus Christ are not
addressed to me ;) But I also understand that some, if not all,
of them are likely important to most people in the world who
need knowing/learning how to better take care of their flesh and
their communities.[/quote]I think care needs to be taken by
people when they read books like Genesis since they were written
for Israel and not for others in general. There are cultural,
historical and language problems; and non-Jews can easily reach
wrong conclusions.
[quote]The Body of Christ is formed spiritually but I am not
sure about the Head, because I can't see in the realm of the
Divine Love any sign of the worldly masters/followers game. I
would be surprised if Jesus doesn't agree with me on this
;)[/quote]
Do you have Genesis in Arabic? My understanding is that the
word for "head" and "chief" or "most important thing" in Arabic
is "rayiys". This is close to the Hebrew "resh" used in Genesis
1:1. Rabbi Maimonides said it should not read "in the
beginning" but rather "by the chief thing." Or by the "head."
Now he was a Jew, so he would not agree with me that Jesus is
that head by which all things were made.
In Hebrew, "stone" and "son" are both "ben." I don't that that
holds true in Arabic. First Jesus' words in English
translation from the Greek:
Luke 20:17 And he beheld them, and said, What is this then that
is written, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is
become the head of the corner?
Then from the Hebrew original:
Psalm 118:22 The stone <'eben> which the builders refused is
become the head <ro'sh> stone of the corner.
When prophets have visions of a certain type with heads made of
one thing, the bodies of something else and the feet of yet
something else, they are seeing symbolically a description of
what is true in the highest heaven, the middle heavens, and then
the earth.
Paul is easier to understand:
1 Corinthians 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of
every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and
the head of Christ is God.
Ephesians 1:22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave
him to be the head over all things to the church,
Colossians 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who
is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all
things he might have the preeminence.
When Jesus ascended into Heaven, he was taking his former
position -- with the disciples below taking on the feminine role
of "the Body of Christ." The two are meant to be one. All
the members of the Body of Christ should be obeying what the
Head tells them.
[quote]About the divorce, many couples may live it, even while
they live together. So the divorce in itself is not wrong; it is
like a body hit by an accident or a serious illness. This body
may be recovered/healed or not. But when a divorced person
(while the ex-partner is alive) re-starts his life with a new
partner (though he/she has the right to do according to most, if
not all, rules), this would be a sign that this person is
created as a survival being who, therefore, doesn't mind using
some others in his life... as in marriage or in any other legal
deal, at best.[/quote]I wouldn't go that far. Take a woman with
a brutal husband who doesn't love her. He divorces her for no
reason other than he doesn't like her. She may not have done
anything wrong. If she is divorced, it will cause her pain and
suffering; but she has another chance at finding a man who may
care about her. I agree with the position of the Orthodox
Church on divorce. Two divorces may be acceptable even if it's
stretching things; but if someone marries three times and
divorces three times, they should call it quits and not remarry.
#Post#: 11836--------------------------------------------------
Re: One Flesh
By: KerimF Date: April 5, 2016, 2:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Kerry link=topic=1066.msg11834#msg11834
date=1459767105]
All the members of the Body of Christ should be obeying what the
Head tells them.
[/quote]
Did you love a teacher for his clear professional lectures? If
you did, and what you do now was already agreed on by your
teacher, would you call this... "you are obeying the teacher"?
To me, Jesus is the source of all knowledge. He took a flesh as
mine to confirm me whatever I, unlike most people who are
created as survival beings (sons of the world), may discover
about my nature, life and the world as it is.
In this meaning, Jesus is indeed the 'head' stone in my life.
[quote author=Kerry link=topic=1066.msg11834#msg11834
date=1459767105]
Take a woman with a brutal husband who doesn't love her. He
divorces her for no reason other than he doesn't like her. She
may not have done anything wrong. If she is divorced, it will
cause her pain and suffering; but she has another chance at
finding a man who may care about her.
[/quote]
The case of a married woman differs from of a married man in
many countries.
When a girl has no right to choose her man in the same way a man
does to find his woman, her marriage is fake in the first place,
practically speaking. In this case, the man is given the right
to have a woman (if not more than one) as a slave and also the
right to call her as being a wife (for his prestige).
So what I said earlier applies on women who claim being free
(independent) only ;D
#Post#: 11837--------------------------------------------------
Re: One Flesh
By: paralambano Date: April 5, 2016, 12:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Kerry -
[quote]Jesus said:
Matthew 19:6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh.
What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put
asunder.
This cannot refer to what men call marriage, can it?[/quote]
Here's an interesting article I think (if you haven't seen it
yet):
HTML http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/598011/jewish/Marriage-Destiny-or-Chance.htm
HTML http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/598011/jewish/Marriage-Destiny-or-Chance.htm
I like what it says about bershat not being a decree but about
soul compatibility, that in a sense we are partners with God by
prayer, and that we have free will about it.
para . . . .
#Post#: 11838--------------------------------------------------
Re: One Flesh
By: Kerry Date: April 5, 2016, 5:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
To Paralambano,
I had not seen that article. I didn't understand everything but
generally agreed with what I understood. How free will gets
preserved seems like a necessary part of any theory to me. I
cannot accept any theory of "predestination" that reduces free
will to nothing. Virtue, making right choices in life, is the
thing. When we choose right, then God can reward us. It must
be part of any theory for me. For me "justification" is a
real process with the soul being made just, correct, virtuous --
not a sham pretend sort of thing. God wishes to crown man with
Glory; and we can see, I believe, the Glory of God revealed in
the saints. It is not their glory we see. They are like
candles in the darkness, revealing the Light.
I also believe that sometimes when the soul incarnates, it may
incarnates to do God's work and a spouse and children would be
distractions. The passage in Matthew says so. Sometimes too
the soul has other work to do; and spiritual progress would be
slowed by the demands of a family.
Matthew 19:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born
from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were
made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made
themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is
able to receive it, let him receive it.
Eunuchs in that context cannot mean physical eunuchs since
physical castration was against the Law of Moses. The term
often can mean that; but there I don't think it can.
The article at chabad doesn't go into some details, and I may
not agree entirely if I knew all their beliefs. I believe
h'adam and what Christians call the Body of Christ are the same
thing. It is the same too as what Jews call the "one man" of
Israel since they believe all Israel make up one being.
The entire Body was divided into two parts; but each soul that
was originally part of h'adam was as well. How many souls were
there originally? Isaac Luria theorized there were 600,000;
and you can see where he got that number from. That's not
right however. That's the number of Israel after many Gentiles
had already been added and incorporated into the Body of Israel.
I say it was 144,000 as stated in Revelation; and these are
described as "male virgins," an odd phrase to say the least
since the word "virgin" everywhere else in the Bible refers to
women. Each of these "male-and-female" souls was divided to
become two. Thus it is also right to say there was 288,000
souls as another kabbalist asserted; and we can cite Genesis for
the 288 and then multiply by 1000. "And the Spirit of God
moved <288> upon the face of the waters." Rachaph appears
there with a prefix and suffix; but its root form is 288.
I believe this is true also of Gentiles -- but they come from
other trees being grafted on.
I think each male soul and each female soul were originally one
and then divided; and while they may incarnate and marry others
to learn life's lessons, eventually they must wind up back
together. Thus I may not agree with the article at chabad
which seems to say God decrees this. I believe God divided the
two, and only those two can come back together to form what we
might call a spiritual marriage.
Why would God divide the one and make it two and then say it was
His Will that the two become one? If God wanted them as one,
why divide then like that? I think it was so they could learn
about Love -- and also to create diversity. When the two
become one, a new type of being seems to appear.
Of course this is more than sexual intercourse and making
babies. If that's all it was, some of the worst sinners in
this world have done that, sometimes abandoning their offspring,
sometimes abusing them. I don't see much merit in having sex
and babies when I see how easily callous sinners can do it.
It is a "high calling" in my opinion for a saintly woman to have
children. If she does, she is bringing saintly children into the
world. Such children can change the world for the better.
1 Timothy 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being
deceived was in the transgression.
15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they
continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
Was there that much merit when Abraham had sex with Hagar and
she got pregnant? I say no, because Sarah was predestined to
be "the one" Abraham was to become one with. The "child of
promise" came through the union with Sarah -- which I believe
was both spiritual and physical.
It may be worth researching how the word "knew" is used in the
Bible. People often assume that it "have sex." I say it
means much more than that. When we read that a man "knew" his
wife somewhere in the Bible, it is a sign of some sort about
what kind of child is about to be born. (I admit Cain seems to
be an exception; but I see merit and potential in Cain.) When
male and female merge -- and yes, two spirits can occupy the
same space -- they "know" each other perfectly since each is
the other. On the physical plane, they still appear to be two
people; but after this merging, they are only one spiritually.
It may not be particularly relevant here; but I happen to think
St. Francis of Assisi and St. Clare were "married" in the eyes
of God. They certainly were not married in the eyes of the
world; but I think they were a perfect pair. I would say the
same of St. John of the Cross and St. Teresa of Avila. I love
the story
HTML http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/lff/lff018.htm
about how the
"fire fell" when Francis and Clare were eating together.
And when the dinner hour was come, St. Francis and St. Clare sat
down together, and one of the companions of St. Francis with the
companion of St. Clare; and thereafter all the other companions
sate them humbly down at the table. And, at the first dish, St.
Francis began to speak of God so sweetly, so highly and so
marvellously, that abundance of Divine grace descended upon them
and they were all rapt in God. And while they were thus rapt,
with eyes and hands raised to heaven, the men of Assisi and of
Bettona, and they of the district round about, saw that St. Mary
of the Angels, and all the Place, and the wood which was then
hard by the Place, were burning fiercely; and it seemed to them
that there was a great fire which encompassed the church and the
monastery and the wood together; for the which cause the men of
Assisi ran down thither with great haste to quench the fire,
believing that verily everything was burning. But when they
reached the Place they saw that there was no fire at all, and
they went in and found St. Francis and St. Clare and all their
company rapt in God through contemplation, and sitting about
that lowly board. Whereby they understood of a surety that that
had been Divine fire and not material, the which God had made to
appear miraculously to show forth and signify the fire of Divine
love wherewith were enkindled the souls of those holy friars and
holy nuns; wherefore they departed thence with great consolation
of heart and holy edification.
#Post#: 11839--------------------------------------------------
Re: One Flesh
By: Kerry Date: April 5, 2016, 8:12 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=KerimF link=topic=1066.msg11836#msg11836
date=1459840463]
Did you love a teacher for his clear professional lectures? If
you did, and what you do now was already agreed on by your
teacher, would you call this... "you are obeying the
teacher"?[/quote]I don't think of teachers like that. I ask if
what they have to teach me means anything. If what they say is
true, what does it mean in my life? Does it work?
I never studied how to fix cars, but if I did, clear and
professional lectures wouldn't be enough to satisfy me. My
teacher would need to be able to explain things to me in a way
so I could actually fix cars. If he himself couldn't fix cars,
I wouldn't think he was a worthwhile teacher. Never mind all
the grand words -- theories -- can the guy get results? And if
I listen to him carefully, can he tell me how to get results
too?
[quote]To me, Jesus is the source of all knowledge.[/quote]
Sure about this? Or could you possibly be trying to flatter
him? Jesus doesn't need to be flattered. He doesn't need to
be the source of all knowledge personally.
How could we share anything we know if Jesus is the source of
all knowledge? If I love people and know things that work for
me, I want to share them. They worked for me, and I hope
they'll work for others too.
You might mean something else however. You might mean Jesus is
the source of the most important knowledge?
[quote]He took a flesh as mine to confirm me whatever I, unlike
most people who are created as survival beings (sons of the
world), may discover about my nature, life and the world as it
is.
In this meaning, Jesus is indeed the 'head' stone in my life.
[/quote]
What you call "survival beings" are not connected to Christ.
I'd say they are like fingers or toes of the body that have been
cut off, no longer attached to the body. Thus they have no
connection to the head. They lack proper direction. I believe
they can become connected -- I believe anyone can. If they
fail to make that connection, they will die just as toes and
fingers die when not connected to the body.
Suppose you were a toe on a body, and the head (or brain) sends
you a signal to walk as part of the foot. Do you obey or not?
You may not know why the head wants you to walk. The head may
know the stomach is empty and needs food. The head is getting
information from all the parts of the body -- but tends to tell
each part only what it needs to know.
If you were a toe and got a thorn in your foot, the head will
know this and tell other parts of the body to stop and take the
thorn out. The head is there to get all the different body
parts working together as a whole. A toe can't remove a thorn
by itself; and the fingers need to be told about the problem and
what to do.
If we are members of the Body of Christ, we need to accept what
he says as the "Head" as being in our best interest and in the
best interest of the whole Body.
[quote]The case of a married woman differs from of a married man
in many countries.
When a girl has no right to choose her man in the same way a man
does to find his woman, her marriage is fake in the first place,
practically speaking. In this case, the man is given the right
to have a woman (if not more than one) as a slave and also the
right to call her as being a wife (for his prestige).
So what I said earlier applies on women who claim being free
(independent) only ;D [/quote]
It's easier for women to love than men. A woman can love
almost anyone if he's willing to try. In earthly marriages,
it's the men who usually need to learn how to love. Women on
the other hand usually need to learn how to show respect and how
to obey reasonable ideas instead of being irrational and
whimsical.
Ephesians 5: 22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own
husbands, as unto the Lord.
23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is
the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the
wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the
church, and gave himself for it;
26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of
water by the word,
27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not
having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should
be holy and without blemish.
28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that
loveth his wife loveth himself.
29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and
cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his
bones.
31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and
shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and
the church.
33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his
wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her
husband.
The task then for most married people is for the wife to learn
how to show respect and for the man to learn how to love. If a
man doesn't love his wife, he's making it harder for her to
respect him; and if a woman doesn't respect people, she's
making it harder for him to love her.
The man who thinks being a man gives him the right to treat a
wife like a slave is not a true Christian. I would say too he
can't be a good Muslim since their teachings say a man should
make his wife or wives happy. If a man has more than one wife,
he's obliged by law to bring them pleasure sexually -- and using
his own body too, not mechanical devices. He should do this
before allowing himself to have his own pleasure. This law is
not practiced much however. If a man can't satisfy all his
wives sexually using his own body, he should divorce some of
them.
It is said by the Jews that King David kept all his wives
satisfied sexually. The Jews teach it is a disgrace for a man
to have a wife who is unhappy either sexually or in some other
way. It is the man's duty to make her happy. If he can't, he
should divorce her. That's also not practiced today in every
quarter -- there are many unhappy women in Israel who wish their
husbands would divorce them, but the husbands refuse. This is
not the way it's supposed to be.
Paralambano cited chabad.org and now I will.
HTML http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/560111/jewish/The-Wifes-Grounds-for-Divorce.htm
The primary right of a woman to demand a divorce is linked to
situations when basic marital needs have been neglected, or
abused by the husband. The husband is then "convinced" by the
court to both grant the get to his wife, and to give her the
ketubah (marital contract) settlement.
The husband who has been derelict with regard to the sustenance
that he is obliged to give to his wife, or the conjugal
visitation that he must share with his wife, has thereby
violated a primary responsibility of the marital covenant, and
the wife has the right to a divorce in these situations. These
elements of the marriage are so crucial, that their being used
by the husband as a weapon with which to deprive the wife,
either emotionally or physically, is considered a breach of the
sacred marital trust.
A woman may demand a divorce from her husband, if he has been
found to be philandering with other women. There need not be
proof of his having committed adultery, just of his having
cavorted with other women. Even his causing her a bad name
through his lecherous actions is likewise considered legitimate
justification for the wife launching a divorce action. If the
wife feels repulsed by her husband, it is wrong to force her to
remain in the union. If the wife should make a vow that affects
the marital union, such as a vow related to abstaining from
conjugal union or some other impediment to marital viability,
and the husband purposely fails to annul that vow, this is
interpreted as a desire on his part to sever the relationship.
The wife may then demand a divorce.
#Post#: 11842--------------------------------------------------
Re: One Flesh
By: KerimF Date: April 6, 2016, 12:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
In this subject, as for any other one (social, economical,
military, political or religious), I believe what I personally
perceive and observe without being biased (as a scientist does
in every experiment). Only then, I may compare what I got in
mind to what is revealed to the world and what some friends may
add from their personal experiences and analyses.
This explains why I use saying "Jesus agrees with me on this or
that" and not I obey Jesus or my Father in Heaven.
In life, whoever asks obedience is a needy person, in a way or
another.
For example, a worldly king cannot exist as a king without many
obedient followers. A religious leader cannot be proud having
subjects around him if there is no one obeying what he claims
being the rules of a god (besides some inherited rituals).
But people (of any belief and anywhere) have also the right
seeing their Creator as a needy being (though supernatural) who
look for servants and followers and is ready to punish whoever
refuses following his commands.
It happens that Jesus Christ only (a fiction or reality) didn't
present my God as one selfish (hence needy) being ;)
But this doesn't prevent that, in the name of Jesus, zillion of
people (being created to serve the world only) had to keep
believing in the traditional image of God (the
Supreme/Supernatural King) as revealed to the ancient Jews (when
men were like kids of humanity) then cloned by Mohammad
Al-Kuraishi under the name of Allah (imitating pharaohs... see
Saudi kings ;) ).
I noticed that you, Kerry, do the inverse of what I do in
searching for the truth(s). If I am not wrong, you look first to
almost all what may have been revealed to the world about a
subject. Then, you try to figure out, from what you got, what
could be its best part for the world (not just for you, since
you also believe that God created all other men of the same
nature as yours... including me ;D ).
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page