DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Love God Only
HTML https://lovegodonly.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Things of the Mind
*****************************************************
#Post#: 10383--------------------------------------------------
And yet more from Being Clothed with Scripture
By: Amadeus Date: February 22, 2015, 11:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[Quote]Amadeus:
This is one area where I have strongly opposed his position. He
long ago paid attention to me and seem to understand my
understanding of tongues, but more recently he has apparently
gone back to his old stance. I have been a tongue-talker since
1976. For me it has been and is an important part of what I do
in God. I know that there are fakers or abusers in the area, but
I also know that God does work in some people in a positive way
through tongues.[/quote]
[quote]Kerry: In other words, he did not learn anything from
you. I find that disappointing. It makes me wonder if he really
understood you or if he said he agreed as a way of manipulating
you if he was afraid of alienating you. I can't promise you
this since I'm getting old and my memory may fail me; but I
doubt I will forget our exchanges about Tamar. I never made
that connection before. I didn't make it even after you asked
me. I did make it later after you had more to say about it.
I doubt I'll forget it. You appear to have gotten it from
someone else and passed it on. I'd say most of "what I know"
is the result of people passing on to me what they received from
others.[/quote]
[font=courier]
The getting old and having memory failure is not only your
problem. Often I am well supported by my wife in this when it is
something she also knew about. Her short-term memory is 100%
better than mine especially on essentially secular matters. When
her memory also fails, we are sometimes both in trouble. That is
togetherness.
I know two people I have called friends who now have this same
type of trouble in scriptural discussions: They often do not
even hear what others are saying about some of their favorites
beliefs. [The other one is not on the Internet.] My wife would
like to see me cast both of them aside, but she would never
earnestly push me to do. [There was a time many years ago when
she would have.] [/font]
[Quote]Amadeus
Yes, I know. He is not as strong on this belief as his words
sometimes say that he is.
I grew up as a Catholic and have never been anti-Catholic
although some Catholics have wanted to paint me that way. I have
no memories of my time in the Catholic Church that were not good
ones. I learned to know God for the first time as a Catholic.
Having said that, I still cannot see me going back into the RCC.
Too many people, him included, in my opinion too often speak too
strongly in the negative without really explaining why. I am
reminded of Job who wanted to reason with God until he was given
the opportunity. The Catholic Church as a whole may be a bad
thing, but I don't see the necessity to paint it that way. If it
is, God will show it for what it is to anyone who He decides has
a need to know.[/quote]
[quote]Kerry: I think the Catholic Church serves a purpose. I
have been accused at times myself of being anti-Catholic; but
I'd say I look that way usually when a Catholic is being a bit
too enthusiastic in trying to portray the Catholic Church as all
positive. I feel obliged to present the other side. Few
things in this life are as one-sided as we may be tempted to
want them to be; and he seems to want things to be
simple.[/quote]
[font=courier]I believe that everything in God’s eyes really is
simple, but who sees with only God’s eyes?
When I was a devout Catholic, (and I really believe that I was),
everything was very simple. I simply followed the way that the
local priest and the nuns directed. It was a small town with
only two churches. One was a tiny non-denominational Protestant
that I never entered. The other was one of the original 21
California missions. Probably 90% or more of the town’s
population was Catholic. I was fine through elementary school
and through high school. When I had moved to attend college I
tried to attend the closest Catholic Church and found that I was
outside. I haven’t been inside since.
The Catholic Church does apparently have a clearly defined
explanation for probably any question a person could ask.
Because I don’t always have such clearly defined explanations in
response to Catholics I have sometimes gotten into trouble.
Wanting to keep things simple is not an evil thing, but
sometimes it does not work for some people. The more detailed we
get in our explanations, the more likely we are to get into
disagreements. [/font]
[Quote]Amadeus:
There is a mixture in every man who is not already an overcomer
as Jesus was an overcomer. Each of us who believes in a measure
have some of that "form of godliness" while denying some of that
"Power". Fortunately, the mixture contains some of good things
as well or the person would not really be a believer. If we do
have some good things then how can be ever be better than the
very worst of unbelievers?[/quote]
[quote]Kerry: I think the person who denies God the Power to
change things is apt to lose his connection with Heaven.[/quote]
[font=courier]It is in what I call and in what is described in
scripture as growth.
In the flesh we grow to an apparently optimum point in our
physical abilities. What actually happens is the increases
outpace the decreases with the new growth and improvement moving
faster than the degeneration in us. From that optimum point the
degeneration moves faster than the regeneration. All of us are
dying, but it doesn’t show much until the dying in us starts
moving faster than life sustaining processes.
The new or inner man of us of which Paul writes never has to
stop growing and ideally should never stop growing. Without a
continued connection with God, it will stop growing. I liken it
to water. Water keeps things alive, but still water remaining
still for too long will cause death. It relates back to the
dividing of waters you spoke about on another thread.[/font]
[Quote]Amadeus:
What happens in this natural world is very important to God even
if it is not the most important thing. If it is important to God
then it must also be important to us. This is another thing I
discussed long ago with him and he understood my point but now
seems to have forgotten. Perhaps he simply sees so much evil in
so many people that he becomes weary in his efforts to show
people something better. He does have something better, but it
is not he that is better anymore than it is you or me that is
better. The 'better' is the good which is God. Too much emphasis
on me can get a person with even the best of intentions into
trouble. The good we have is good, but we too often cannot see
the other part of our mixture which is NOT good.[/quote]
[quote]Kerry: Let me put it this way: What happens in this
world is sufficiently important to God that He chose to put us
here. Oh yes, I think we all agreed to be here too; but I
think God has provided for us what we need. If life on this
earth wasn't important and if we believe aborted babies go to
Heaven, we would be right to abort children. I see this world
pretty much like a prison or parole system. We are not yet
ready to be fit citizens of Heaven. We are here to learn
how.[/quote]
[font=courier]Yes, we have to learn how. We have to learn to do
things the right way and in the end of the matter that right way
is God’s Way.[/font]
[Quote]Amadeus:
What we have in our heart from God must be reflected in the way
we live in the natural or a question must be raised in an honest
person's mind whether or not what we have is really from God.
Among those who really have something from God, that something
is in a mixture with things that are not only ungodly but
evil.[/quote]
[quote]Kerry:
That brings me back to his forgetting the conversation about
tongues. If he had truly learned from the conversation, truly
saw how he erred in judging all speaking in tongues as
misguided, he wouldn't have reverted to his old position.
"Ever learning but never coming to the truth" is what comes to
my mind.[/quote]
[font=courier]Perhaps as various people have told me over the
years, we need to review later (’chew the cud) new things we
have heard or learned. If it is to be a part of us or needs to
be then in our reconsideration of it, it probably will.
[/font]
[quote]Kerry: Yes, I think he pretended to understand you in
order to keep your friendship. While that may sound like a
ultra-critical remark, it tells me something else about him.
He does want people to like him. That's good, that's healthy. I
tend to think he wants to be seen as a teacher because that
would make him feel appreciated. Again, I see something good in
that -- it's good to want to feel appreciated. Where I have
problems with him is how he goes about trying to achieve these
goals. I can see the good side in him; but I also think it's
probably a waste of time trying to get through. When someone is
willing to agree with people just because he thinks he may lose
friendship, I find it impossible to trust him. I never know
if he's telling the truth or not.[/quote]
[font=courier]Yes, when it comes down to it we should come to
like people, or not, for what they sincerely are rather than
what they pretend to be to gain favor. I remember seeing this
among the boys and the girls when I was young. Each one wanting
to impress someone of the opposite sex strived to always put his
or her ‘best foot forward’ or even to put on an attractive front
which was not really them at all. This pretense might accomplish
the initial purpose and they end up getting married, but then
they really get to know each other and the result is sometimes
not very nice[/font]
#Post#: 10407--------------------------------------------------
Re: And yet more from Being Clothed with Scripture
By: Kerry Date: February 24, 2015, 2:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Amadeus link=topic=990.msg10383#msg10383
date=1424625217]
The getting old and having memory failure is not only your
problem. Often I am well supported by my wife in this when it is
something she also knew about. Her short-term memory is 100%
better than mine especially on essentially secular matters. When
her memory also fails, we are sometimes both in trouble. That is
togetherness.[/quote]I've had "selective" memory failures for
years. I was never good at remembering numbers unless they
made sense to me. If you asked me the date, I couldn't tell
you. Right now, I don't know what day of the month it is. It's
going to change, so why put it in my head? In my 30s and 40s,
I would forget my age. I'd have to subtract the year I was born
from the current year -- I could remember the current year
because of writing checks. I'm getting better about remembering
my age now since retirement age is a factor. I can also
remember my land line phone number since it used to my sister's
number; but I don't know my cell phone number. I never call it.
Why should I know it?
Now it's other things. I may put water on to boil, thinking I
have time to do something else real fast and then forget about
the water until I smell the pan after it's boiled dry. Most
annoying though is how my problem with names. There are people
I know fairly well but I can't remember their names. From the
past, there are people I knew quite well but I can't remember
their names. I can tell you what astrological sign some of them
were but not their names. Perhaps it's because names seem
arbitrary to me?
[quote]I know two people I have called friends who now have this
same type of trouble in scriptural discussions: They often do
not even hear what others are saying about some of their
favorites beliefs. [The other one is not on the Internet.]My
wife would like to see me cast both of them aside, but she would
never earnestly push me to do. [There was a time many years ago
when she would have.] [/quote]I'd give serious consideration to
your wife. While I'd be reluctant to shove them out the door so
to speak, I might not give them much encouragement either.
Sometimes people like that fade away if you don't encourage
them. The reason I say that is that I think that kind of person
finds it easy to ignore what others say is not being
considerate. They ignore other people when it's convenient, and
that probably annoys the other people; and it seems they annoy
your wife too. I'd want to reduce the time I spent with them
then. It may improve your life if you let them fade away.
[quote]I believe that everything in God’s eyes really is simple,
but who sees with only God’s eyes?[/quote]
Men tend to make things complicated by adding unreal factors
into the mix. Take the matter of motive and cause. People tend
to get hung up a lot about the "reasons" things happen. I play
the game myself but try not to be obvious. Most people do have
"reasons" for what they do; and I try to figure them out. But I
know I'm guessing.
This may sound impossible to people; but I think it's true. If
you ask someone why he is doing or not doing something and he
gives you a reason, you might be able to change his mind. If
he has no reason and says he's doing or not doing it just
because he feels or doesn't feel like it, you will not be able
to change his mind.
Few people make free will decisions. They made decisions in the
past and are "on automatic." Some of the time, they can't even
remember making those decisions; and the "reasons" they give you
for their actions are invented. They sound logical to be sure;
but they aren't real.
Take someone who is suspicious of everyone because he was abused
as a child. Someone can decide as a child, it's not safe to
trust anyone. He will grow up putting on an act of trusting
others; but behind it all lurks that suspicion based on his
decision as a child. Everything will go fine as long as you do
nothing to make him feel betrayed; but he can turn against you
in a flash if the old suspicion is roused. You could have done
99 things right but the one thing that made him suspicious will
make him forget the 99 things. For him, it's possible that you
did all those good things as a ruse to gain his trust. In his
mind, others are out to con him -- and the one thing you did
that seemed wrong to him will be evidence to him that you conned
him in the past.
The reality is he doesn't trust anyone. He projects trust but
it's not real. What's tragic is he may want to be able to trust
people now -- but he hasn't gone back to that decision in his
childhood and said, "I think I was wrong about that. I'll
change my mind." But prior to that, he had wanted love. The
original decision was in favor of love. By setting up a
decision that conflicts, he's now divided. He's become
"double-minded."
The reality I see is that everyone wants to love and to be
loved. Everything else is illusion that can trap people and
make them slaves of their own mental computations. Jesus said
he came to set people free; and for me, that means freed of the
thoughts and feelings that make us into their slaves. Underneath
all the unrealistic trash of the mind is that child that love
and wants to be loved. I can remember now two instances where
my life was being threatened -- and in neither case did I
believe the other person's "real motive" was to kill me. I
refused to accept that as real.
God does not see iniquity. His eyes are too pure even to see
it. I think God sees only the saint in all His children; and
while He does not see their iniquity, the Christ Spirit can see
it and work to correct it. We may not be able to stand in the
Presence of God in Heaven without white robes; but we can exist
in the Presence of Jesus who can help us get those white robes.
I think of Zacchaeus now. I think Jesus saw both sides of him.
Jesus could see the facade Zacchaeus put up; and my guess that
facade was created in large part by his being short. People may
have looked at him as inferior, may have teased him and so on.
More importantly though, I think Jesus could see the saint in
him, what he really wanted to be. Nor do I think Jesus was
seeing only the satanic in Peter when he drew Peter's attention
to the satanic facade. He knew Peter was a potential saint; and
Peter trusted Jesus enough that he knew what Jesus meant. Jesus
was calling on him to be better. Jesus knew he could be better.
I believe if we see others as God sees them, we see the good in
them and recognize it. We do not look down at them as inferior
people trapped permanently by their problems but see what they
can become. No one despises a hungry thief. Yes, stealing is
wrong; but surely we can see the motive for stealing was not
completely evil. Indeed wanting to stay alive by eating is a
good motive. If he stole to feed his family, we can see even
love in his stealing. To me, the love is real. What he's
doing by stealing is acting on a mistaken notion about life. He
hasn't learned something yet. It's the absence of virtue.
That's like darkness being the absence of light. The absence of
something is not a real thing. For me then, evil is an illusion
-- the absence of good. It may be tempting to see the "dark
spots" on the "white garments" as dirt soiling the garments; but
ultimately, I think those dark spots are only holes in the white
light that should surround the person.
Such holes can play tricks with us, of course. Being empty
holes, unless they are filled with Divine Light after we are
delivered from one delusion (or demon if you will), they are
almost certainly going to get filled with other delusions --
worse than the ones we got delivered from. Here again, the
concept of double-minded plays a role. If delivered from one
delusion or evil, we should choose good at once to fill the
empty spot. If we do not choose good right away, we are
basically trying to have things both ways -- trying to keep the
option there of doing evil if we feel like it later. James
said failing to do good when we see is a sin -- that's true --
and I say more, it's inviting temptation and trouble. Failing
to choose good is failing to reject duality, so that person is
apt to return to being double-minded.
This may interest you. Everyone has free will, it is true; and
thus it is impossible to make decisions for them. But . . . and
it's a big but . . . you can force people to make decisions just
as Elijah did. "How long halt ye between two opinions? if the
Lord be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him." Jesus
put people on the spot, forcing some of them to make a decision.
At Pentecost, some believed and others mocked. Israel was also
put on the spot, being told they had to decide. The Word does
not decide for people; but the Word can force them to take one
side or the other. Any saint who speaks "with a new tongue" has
the ability, I think, to put others in a position where they
have to decide. At Pentecost, some believed and others mocked.
[quote]When I was a devout Catholic, (and I really believe that
I was), everything was very simple. I simply followed the way
that the local priest and the nuns directed. It was a small town
with only two churches. One was a tiny non-denominational
Protestant that I never entered. The other was one of the
original 21 California missions. Probably 90% or more of the
town’s population was Catholic. I was fine through elementary
school and through high school. When I had moved to attend
college I tried to attend the closest Catholic Church and found
that I was outside. I haven’t been inside since.[/quote]
You didn't feel as if you fit in?
[quote]The Catholic Church does apparently have a clearly
defined explanation for probably any question a person could
ask. Because I don’t always have such clearly defined
explanations in response to Catholics I have sometimes gotten
into trouble. [/quote]
The tables can be turned on Catholics if they insist too much on
their explanations. If you research things enough, I think
you'll find they didn't always have all those explanations. I
could accept that if they didn't also insist that everything
they teach has always been the same. It seems to me the more
things got changed, the more they wanted to say nothing had ever
changed. I'd say they changed a lot and are still changing
things just as the American Bishops did recently when issuing a
new version of the Apostles Creed, changing "we believe" to "I
believe." I thought that was a huge change; but few Catholics
seemed to object. The "we believe" is better since it
emphasizes being part of the community. "I believe" is more
like modern politics which stress the independence of the
individual.
Take the matter of marriage as a sacrament. We know
historically that people did not get married in churches in
early Christianity. I think it safe to say too Jesus did not
institute the sacrament of marriage. Nor can I believe he
instituted the sacrament of holy orders. These things were
added later. I've no objection to adding them; but I do object
if it's said they were part of "faith once delivered to the
saints" as if today's ideas have always been taught by the
Catholic Church.
[quote]Wanting to keep things simple is not an evil thing, but
sometimes it does not work for some people. The more detailed we
get in our explanations, the more likely we are to get into
disagreements.[/quote]
It is a fact that the early church councils meant to unify
everyone by making decisions about doctrines failed miserably.
The people who disagreed split off and formed their own
churches. Trying to make things simple made the arguments
complicated. Some are so complicated, I can't get my mind
around them. They appear to be talking about things they
believe they understand; but I have no idea what they're talking
about. When the talk about the "essence" of God, I get terribly
confused. Does that mean God has "essential" parts and other
parts that are non-essential? My head spins.
The idea of God as "persons" also confuses me. That used to be
interpreted as "personae." That I can understand -- three ways
of manifesting. Over time, that got changed to "persons."
Today, many Catholics and Orthodox would say it's always meant
persons; but I can see what the original mean. Things are
"simple" only if adopt everything you're told without
questioning it. If you question it as I have, well, it gives me
a headache trying to understand what seem like contradictions to
me. Then comes the statement, "But it is a mystery." My
response to that is, "Then why discuss it? Why should you or I
try to understand it or even hope to?"
[quote]It is in what I call and in what is described in
scripture as growth.
In the flesh we grow to an apparently optimum point in our
physical abilities. What actually happens is the increases
outpace the decreases with the new growth and improvement moving
faster than the degeneration in us. From that optimum point the
degeneration moves faster than the regeneration. All of us are
dying, but it doesn’t show much until the dying in us starts
moving faster than life sustaining processes.
The new or inner man of us of which Paul writes never has to
stop growing and ideally should never stop growing. Without a
continued connection with God, it will stop growing. I liken it
to water. Water keeps things alive, but still water remaining
still for too long will cause death. It relates back to the
dividing of waters you spoke about on another thread.[/quote]
It seems to me that one thing grows while the other fades away.
As I grow older and get more physical problems, I find I'm not
that attached to the idea of wanting to keep the physical body
alive so much. Cooking, keeping a roof over my head, all those
things connected with bodies seem more like unpleasant chores.
Why do them? To keep my physical body alive? The world is
full of misery. I have life easy compared to other people.
Surely there has to be a better way to live.
[quote]Yes, we have to learn how. We have to learn to do things
the right way and in the end of the matter that right way is
God’s Way.[/quote]What I see is that most of the misery in the
world is caused by failure to obey the Golden Rule. When too
many people believe they can be happy if they act in a way that
brings misery to others, we'll all making the world a miserable
place for each other.
[quote]Yes, when it comes down to it we should come to like
people, or not, for what they sincerely are rather than what
they pretend to be to gain favor. I remember seeing this among
the boys and the girls when I was young. Each one wanting to
impress someone of the opposite sex strived to always put his or
her ‘best foot forward’ or even to put on an attractive front
which was not really them at all. This pretense might accomplish
the initial purpose and they end up getting married, but then
they really get to know each other and the result is sometimes
not very nice.[/quote]I've known people who could charm me
easily. I would done almost anything for them if they asked. I
liked them and I thought they liked me. What amazed me was when
they stopped being charming. Why do that? I still can't fathom
it completely. Most of them lost me as a friend. Once I saw
through the games, I couldn't trust them anymore; and since they
became unpleasant, I didn't want to be around them.
If they know how to get what they want by being charming, why be
unpleasant? It doesn't make sense to me. Are they feeling
guilty for deceiving me with their pretenses and want to be
rejected because their consciences tell them they are unworthy?
Do they think my affection was pretend and want revenge? Do they
resent other people when they're busy charming them? Maybe
that's part of it -- maybe they hate themselves and figure
others may hate them too if they don't put on the act of being
charming? There are some people too who seem to enjoy getting
others hooked like a fish, and once they think they have you
hooked, they turn ugly.
Politicians are often that kind of charming person. As long as
they think someone is a valuable ally, they're ever so charming;
but if that ally gets into trouble and looks wounded, it's like
blood in the water with sharks. All the "old friends" can turn
on the wounded person in a flash. Politicians seem to resent
some of the people that give them money too. If you gave a
politician a lot of money and call him a lot for favors, he may
be charming on the outside while fuming on the inside. He can
betray you in a flash if it suits him.
#Post#: 10425--------------------------------------------------
Re: And yet more from Being Clothed with Scripture
By: Amadeus Date: February 25, 2015, 10:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]Amadeus:
The getting old and having memory failure is not only your
problem. Often I am well supported by my wife in this when it is
something she also knew about. Her short-term memory is 100%
better than mine especially on essentially secular matters. When
her memory also fails, we are sometimes both in trouble. That is
togetherness.[/quote]
[quote]Kerry:
I've had "selective" memory failures for years. I was never
good at remembering numbers unless they made sense to me. If
you asked me the date, I couldn't tell you. Right now, I don't
know what day of the month it is. It's going to change, so why
put it in my head? In my 30s and 40s, I would forget my age.
I'd have to subtract the year I was born from the current year
-- I could remember the current year because of writing checks.
I'm getting better about remembering my age now since retirement
age is a factor. I can also remember my land line phone number
since it used to my sister's number; but I don't know my cell
phone number. I never call it. Why should I know it?
Now it's other things. I may put water on to boil, thinking I
have time to do something else real fast and then forget about
the water until I smell the pan after it's boiled dry. Most
annoying though is how my problem with names. There are people
I know fairly well but I can't remember their names. From the
past, there are people I knew quite well but I can't remember
their names. I can tell you what astrological sign some of them
were but not their names. Perhaps it's because names seem
arbitrary to me?[/quote]
[font=courier]I have had that problem of not remembering my own
age and having to subtract the year of birth from the current
year.
Long ago when I had been with T2O for a while and was active
there I began an Excel program register of all the people I met
which included when they joined the forum, their real names
(when available) their Internet names, their specific persuasion
such as RCC (if known) and, where appropriate, the date they
ceased to be a member there in order to try to keep them
straight. I've kept the list and added names in other forums
once in a while to help my memory, but still identification of
people remains many times, for me, a confusing mess. There are a
few I have known long enough and contacted regularly enough to
recognize them without referring to my register. I don't update
it much any more.
The putting the water on to boil is a very familiar one. For
years now I have used the microwave to heat my water. My hearing
loss prevents me from hearing the ding sound when it is ready,
but if I am paying attention, I can hear the microwave itself.
More than once I have been preoccupied and by the time I thought
about the microwave the water was no longer hot.[/font]
#Post#: 10426--------------------------------------------------
Re: And yet more from Being Clothed with Scripture
By: Amadeus Date: February 25, 2015, 10:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[Quote]Amadeus:
I know two people I have called friends who now have this same
type of trouble in scriptural discussions: They often do not
even hear what others are saying about some of their favorites
beliefs. [The other one is not on the Internet.]My wife would
like to see me cast both of them aside, but she would never
earnestly push me to do. [There was a time many years ago when
she would have.][/quote]
[quote]Kerry:
I'd give serious consideration to your wife. While I'd be
reluctant to shove them out the door so to speak, I might not
give them much encouragement either. Sometimes people like that
fade away if you don't encourage them. The reason I say that is
that I think that kind of person finds it easy to ignore what
others say is not being considerate. They ignore other people
when it's convenient, and that probably annoys the other people;
and it seems they annoy your wife too. I'd want to reduce the
time I spent with them then. It may improve your life if you
let them fade away.[/quote]
[font=courier]When we moved about 3 years ago about 50 miles
from one city to another, one of the underlying reasons
(certainly not the primary reason) was to make it difficult for
the non-Internet friend to just drop by the house and visit 2-3
times a week. That has worked. He at the first would try to drop
in unannounced at our new residence, but not more frequent than
every couple of months. When he missed me because I wasn't home,
I advised him to always call ahead of time so as not to waste
time and gasoline. Also I advised that sometimes we had other
things on our schedule than would make the visit he desire
impossible. This has worked. I still enjoy him coming by once in
a while (every 6 months or so) but always with forewarning. He
has not faded away completely, but you get the idea. I do feel
sorry for him because no one else will tolerate his
conversations for very long. He has many interesting things to
say and I have learned much from him over the years about people
and about God, but he doesn't easily recognize the meaning of
time for other people. He will talk for 3-4 hours without
interruption if allowed to do so. At the first, I enjoyed what
he had to say and even when my attention span had run beyond its
limit I hesitated to stop him. I no longer hesitate. When enough
is enough, I interrupt and he soon goes home.
The other one being an Internet only connection is easier as you
can imagine since there are no conversations that cannot easily
postponed or stopped by simply not responding. He also bothers
my wife less because she is a comparatively "few and far
between" Internet user anyway. My wife has developed patience
and tolerance. Not everyone has.[/font]
#Post#: 10427--------------------------------------------------
Re: And yet more from Being Clothed with Scripture
By: Amadeus Date: February 25, 2015, 11:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[Quote]Amadeus:
I believe that everything in God’s eyes really is simple, but
who sees with only God’s eyes?[/quote]
[quote]Kerry:
Men tend to make things complicated by adding unreal factors
into the mix. Take the matter of motive and cause. People tend
to get hung up a lot about the "reasons" things happen. I play
the game myself but try not to be obvious. Most people do have
"reasons" for what they do; and I try to figure them out. But I
know I'm guessing.
This may sound impossible to people; but I think it's true. If
you ask someone why he is doing or not doing something and he
gives you a reason, you might be able to change his mind. If
he has no reason and says he's doing or not doing it just
because he feels or doesn't feel like it, you will not be able
to change his mind.
Few people make free will decisions. They made decisions in the
past and are "on automatic." Some of the time, they can't even
remember making those decisions; and the "reasons" they give you
for their actions are invented. They sound logical to be sure;
but they aren't real.
Take someone who is suspicious of everyone because he was abused
as a child. Someone can decide as a child, it's not safe to
trust anyone. He will grow up putting on an act of trusting
others; but behind it all lurks that suspicion based on his
decision as a child. Everything will go fine as long as you do
nothing to make him feel betrayed; but he can turn against you
in a flash if the old suspicion is roused. You could have done
99 things right but the one thing that made him suspicious will
make him forget the 99 things. For him, it's possible that you
did all those good things as a ruse to gain his trust. In his
mind, others are out to con him -- and the one thing you did
that seemed wrong to him will be evidence to him that you conned
him in the past.
The reality is he doesn't trust anyone. He projects trust but
it's not real. What's tragic is he may want to be able to trust
people now -- but he hasn't gone back to that decision in his
childhood and said, "I think I was wrong about that. I'll
change my mind." But prior to that, he had wanted love. The
original decision was in favor of love. By setting up a
decision that conflicts, he's now divided. He's become
"double-minded."[/quote]
[font=courier]Yes, this "double-mindedness" is more common than
most people realize. [I believe that anyone who has not overcome
as Jesus overcame remains double-minded... so who doesn't remain
in this group?] Those who realize it are more likely to be
working to improve the situation in themselves. There are some,
of course, who act (pretend?) as if they have only a single
purpose and would have you believe it is completely true. Are
some of these people really so single-minded?[/font]
[quote]The reality I see is that everyone wants to love and to
be loved. Everything else is illusion that can trap people and
make them slaves of their own mental computations. Jesus said
he came to set people free; and for me, that means freed of the
thoughts and feelings that make us into their slaves. Underneath
all the unrealistic trash of the mind is that child that love
and wants to be loved. I can remember now two instances where
my life was being threatened -- and in neither case did I
believe the other person's "real motive" was to kill me. I
refused to accept that as real.[/quote]
[font=courier]Strange that you recall two such instances as I
also recall two. One of them I am certain was a dream, but very
real to me. The other I thought was not a dream but no one else
mentioned it or remembered it as they should have, so perhaps is
was also a dream. One was brought sharply into focus from my
memory when I first learned in college about "la leyenda negra"
(the black legend). The other concerned a man with a knife who
stopped me and threatened me as I was walking home from school.
[/font]
[quote]God does not see iniquity. His eyes are too pure even to
see it. I think God sees only the saint in all His children;
and while He does not see their iniquity, the Christ Spirit can
see it and work to correct it. We may not be able to stand in
the Presence of God in Heaven without white robes; but we can
exist in the Presence of Jesus who can help us get those white
robes.[/quote]
[font=courier]I understand what you are saying too clearly. It
makes sense that Jesus existed (was created?) in order to fill
the gap that existed (grew) between God and man. Jesus was part
of God's plan to fill the gap between God and man, to act as a
mediator.[/font]
[quote]I think of Zacchaeus now. I think Jesus saw both sides
of him. Jesus could see the facade Zacchaeus put up; and my
guess that facade was created in large part by his being short.
People may have looked at him as inferior, may have teased him
and so on. More importantly though, I think Jesus could see
the saint in him, what he really wanted to be. Nor do I think
Jesus was seeing only the satanic in Peter when he drew Peter's
attention to the satanic facade. He knew Peter was a potential
saint; and Peter trusted Jesus enough that he knew what Jesus
meant. Jesus was calling on him to be better. Jesus knew he
could be better.[/quote]
[font=courier]Like the many very specific parables which Jesus
told, the story of Zaccheus may/should help us to recognize that
we have built facades which need to be understood for what they
are before we can walk directly forward toward God. [/font]
[quote]I believe if we see others as God sees them, we see the
good in them and recognize it. We do not look down at them as
inferior people trapped permanently by their problems but see
what they can become. No one despises a hungry thief. Yes,
stealing is wrong; but surely we can see the motive for stealing
was not completely evil. Indeed wanting to stay alive by eating
is a good motive. If he stole to feed his family, we can see
even love in his stealing. To me, the love is real. What
he's doing by stealing is acting on a mistaken notion about
life. He hasn't learned something yet. It's the absence of
virtue. That's like darkness being the absence of light. The
absence of something is not a real thing. For me then, evil is
an illusion -- the absence of good. It may be tempting to see
the "dark spots" on the "white garments" as dirt soiling the
garments; but ultimately, I think those dark spots are only
holes in the white light that should surround the person.
Such holes can play tricks with us, of course. Being empty
holes, unless they are filled with Divine Light after we are
delivered from one delusion (or demon if you will), they are
almost certainly going to get filled with other delusions --
worse than the ones we got delivered from. Here again, the
concept of double-minded plays a role. If delivered from one
delusion or evil, we should choose good at once to fill the
empty spot. If we do not choose good right away, we are
basically trying to have things both ways -- trying to keep the
option there of doing evil if we feel like it later. James
said failing to do good when we see is a sin -- that's true --
and I say more, it's inviting temptation and trouble. Failing
to choose good is failing to reject duality, so that person is
apt to return to being double-minded.[/quote]
[font=courier]This brings to mind this parable of Jesus:
"When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh
through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none.
Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came
out; and when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and
garnished.
Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more
wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the
last state of that man is worse than the first. Even so shall it
be also unto this wicked generation." Matt 12:43-45
The man was cleaned, but he failed to take action to fill up
that which had been cleaned with something good. The result was
"seven" times worse than the filth there prior to the cleaning.
[/font]
[quote]This may interest you. Everyone has free will, it is
true; and thus it is impossible to make decisions for them. But
. . . and it's a big but . . . you can force people to make
decisions just as Elijah did. "How long halt ye between two
opinions? if the Lord be God, follow him: but if Baal, then
follow him." Jesus put people on the spot, forcing some of
them to make a decision. At Pentecost, some believed and others
mocked. Israel was also put on the spot, being told they had to
decide. The Word does not decide for people; but the Word can
force them to take one side or the other. Any saint who speaks
"with a new tongue" has the ability, I think, to put others in a
position where they have to decide. At Pentecost, some believed
and others mocked.[/quote]
[font=courier]
This choice between good and evil, between God and mammon, has
been continuously repeated throughout scripture. Jesus and the
writers of the NT point it out to people as did the prophets in
the OT. Eventually, everyone needs to choose, even if he thinks
he is able to delay. Riding the fence on this is what God hates,
lukewarmness.
"I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would
thou wert cold or hot.
So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I
will spue thee out of my mouth." Rev 3:15-16
When it is a "new tongue" in us from God, then it is God in us
being allowed to speak His Way through us: "My way of the
highway". Men who do not have God using their tongues too often
use this way to make people bend...[/font]
#Post#: 10428--------------------------------------------------
Re: And yet more from Being Clothed with Scripture
By: Amadeus Date: February 25, 2015, 11:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[Quote]Amadeus:
When I was a devout Catholic, (and I really believe that I was),
everything was very simple. I simply followed the way that the
local priest and the nuns directed. It was a small town with
only two churches. One was a tiny non-denominational Protestant
that I never entered. The other was one of the original 21
California missions. Probably 90% or more of the town’s
population was Catholic. I was fine through elementary school
and through high school. When I had moved to attend college I
tried to attend the closest Catholic Church and found that I was
outside. I haven’t been inside since.[/quote]
[quote]Kerry:
You didn't feel as if you fit in?[/quote]
[font=courier]I was young and inexperienced in the things of God
(although I doubt I would have admitted it then). I had been
very comfortable in my almost life-long home 'church' with the
people and friends I had there, including the nuns and priests.
I was really unwilling to go through what I would have had to go
through to 'fit in' anywhere else. It took me years (1961-1974)
to begin to understand this and to seriously start moving in the
right direction.[/font]
[Quote]Amadeus:
The Catholic Church does apparently have a clearly defined
explanation for probably any question a person could ask.
Because I don’t always have such clearly defined explanations in
response to Catholics I have sometimes gotten into
trouble.[/quote]
[quote]Kerry:
The tables can be turned on Catholics if they insist too much on
their explanations. If you research things enough, I think
you'll find they didn't always have all those explanations. I
could accept that if they didn't also insist that everything
they teach has always been the same. It seems to me the more
things got changed, the more they wanted to say nothing had ever
changed. I'd say they changed a lot and are still changing
things just as the American Bishops did recently when issuing a
new version of the Apostles Creed, changing "we believe" to "I
believe." I thought that was a huge change; but few Catholics
seemed to object. The "we believe" is better since it
emphasizes being part of the community. "I believe" is more
like modern politics which stress the independence of the
individual.[/quote]
[font=courier]The Catholics developed many of their answers over
the centuries. They have compiled them into the Catholic
Encyclopedia and their Catechism, which are now available to
anyone interested in looking into them. Their troubles prior to
and with Martin Luther and others later helped them to develop
their many readily available answers.
This reaction was very much like a political move in my eyes
rather than a move to better please God. It does remind me of
the actions of Jeroboam (1st king of northern 10 tribes of
Israel) when he replaced the Levites with other priests and had
two golden calves made at Bethel and Dan to give people
alternatives to traveling to Jerusalem, which was located
outside of his jurisdiction.[/font]
[quote]Take the matter of marriage as a sacrament. We know
historically that people did not get married in churches in
early Christianity. I think it safe to say too Jesus did not
institute the sacrament of marriage. Nor can I believe he
instituted the sacrament of holy orders. These things were
added later. I've no objection to adding them; but I do object
if it's said they were part of "faith once delivered to the
saints" as if today's ideas have always been taught by the
Catholic Church.[/quote]
[font=courier]Yes, it seems that over the centuries much has
been done to make it look as if the road on which Catholics
travel was always the same road. We really are to grow toward
God and some Catholics do, but I believe it is too often in
spite of the ways their church has prepared for them rather than
because of it. [/font]
#Post#: 10431--------------------------------------------------
Re: And yet more from Being Clothed with Scripture
By: Amadeus Date: February 25, 2015, 1:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[Quote]Amadeus:
Wanting to keep things simple is not an evil thing, but
sometimes it does not work for some people. The more detailed we
get in our explanations, the more likely we are to get into
disagreements.[/quote]
[quote]Kerry:
It is a fact that the early church councils meant to unify
everyone by making decisions about doctrines failed miserably.
The people who disagreed split off and formed their own
churches. Trying to make things simple made the arguments
complicated. Some are so complicated, I can't get my mind
around them. They appear to be talking about things they
believe they understand; but I have no idea what they're talking
about. When the talk about the "essence" of God, I get terribly
confused. Does that mean God has "essential" parts and other
parts that are non-essential? My head spins.
The idea of God as "persons" also confuses me. That used to be
interpreted as "personae." That I can understand -- three ways
of manifesting. Over time, that got changed to "persons."
Today, many Catholics and Orthodox would say it's always meant
persons; but I can see what the original mean. Things are
"simple" only if adopt everything you're told without
questioning it. If you question it as I have, well, it gives me
a headache trying to understand what seem like contradictions to
me. Then comes the statement, "But it is a mystery." My
response to that is, "Then why discuss it? Why should you or I
try to understand it or even hope to?"[/quote]
[font=courier]
Yes, while I have been involved in many nature of God
discussions, usually with Trinitarians opposed to me, unless I
see some hope, I try avoid such discussions as unproductive. I
only understand more or less what I do not understand, while the
others usually have decided without seemingly good cause (from
what I can see) exactly God is and are sure they can straighten
me out.[/font]
[Quote]Amadeus:
It is in what I call and in what is described in scripture as
growth.
In the flesh we grow to an apparently optimum point in our
physical abilities. What actually happens is the increases
outpace the decreases with the new growth and improvement moving
faster than the degeneration in us. From that optimum point the
degeneration moves faster than the regeneration. All of us are
dying, but it doesn’t show much until the dying in us starts
moving faster than life sustaining processes.
The new or inner man of us of which Paul writes never has to
stop growing and ideally should never stop growing. Without a
continued connection with God, it will stop growing. I liken it
to water. Water keeps things alive, but still water remaining
still for too long will cause death. It relates back to the
dividing of waters you spoke about on another thread.[/quote]
[quote]Kerry:
It seems to me that one thing grows while the other fades away.
As I grow older and get more physical problems, I find I'm not
that attached to the idea of wanting to keep the physical body
alive so much. Cooking, keeping a roof over my head, all those
things connected with bodies seem more like unpleasant chores.
Why do them? To keep my physical body alive? The world is
full of misery. I have life easy compared to other people.
Surely there has to be a better way to live.[/quote]
[font=courier]I certainly agree with the underlined phrase,
although I believe it is very necessary to do all we can to keep
our flesh alive and healthy. This too is part of what God has
made and set before us. We need to do our best even when we seem
to be unable to make a real dent in what we recognize as being
wrong. Paul's words do apply:
"If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men
most miserable." I Cor 15:19
There needs to be something more beyond the here and now. My
natural life is also easy compared to others, but for everyone
there must be an improved way... if we are able to attain it.
But, never mind the discussion of heaven or any afterlife for
now. [/font]
[quote]Kerry:
I've known people who could charm me easily. I would done
almost anything for them if they asked. I liked them and I
thought they liked me. What amazed me was when they stopped
being charming. Why do that? I still can't fathom it
completely. Most of them lost me as a friend. Once I saw
through the games, I couldn't trust them anymore; and since they
became unpleasant, I didn't want to be around them.
If they know how to get what they want by being charming, why be
unpleasant? It doesn't make sense to me. Are they feeling
guilty for deceiving me with their pretenses and want to be
rejected because their consciences tell them they are unworthy?
Do they think my affection was pretend and want revenge? Do they
resent other people when they're busy charming them? Maybe
that's part of it -- maybe they hate themselves and figure
others may hate them too if they don't put on the act of being
charming? There are some people too who seem to enjoy getting
others hooked like a fish, and once they think they have you
hooked, they turn ugly.
Politicians are often that kind of charming person. As long as
they think someone is a valuable ally, they're ever so charming;
but if that ally gets into trouble and looks wounded, it's like
blood in the water with sharks. All the "old friends" can turn
on the wounded person in a flash. Politicians seem to resent
some of the people that give them money too. If you gave a
politician a lot of money and call him a lot for favors, he may
be charming on the outside while fuming on the inside. He can
betray you in a flash if it suits him.[/quote]
[font=courier]Trust in people is not an impossible goal. As you
said elsewhere the Golden Rule is the key. Of course, too many
people have come to places where they have lost whatever hope
they may have once had in putting their faith in any person. How
can a person who was continuously abused through a long lonely
childhood come to trust anyone? You and I have undoubtedly had
bad experiences with people but there have been some good ones
mixed into our histories.
If no one in a person's memory has even tried to help that
person without some underlying selfish motive, how difficult
must it be for that person to believe that anyone who would act
differently even exists? I don't believe that such a barrier
raised up in a person's life is insurmountable, but neither is
it likely to be an easy way. I always thought my road was a bit
rough until I discovered too many roads of others that made mine
seem very soft indeed.[/font]
#Post#: 10458--------------------------------------------------
Re: And yet more from Being Clothed with Scripture
By: Kerry Date: February 27, 2015, 3:22 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Amadeus link=topic=990.msg10427#msg10427
date=1424885561]
[font=courier]Yes, this "double-mindedness" is more common than
most people realize. [I believe that anyone who has not overcome
as Jesus overcame remains double-minded... so who doesn't remain
in this group?] Those who realize it are more likely to be
working to improve the situation in themselves. There are some,
of course, who act (pretend?) as if they have only a single
purpose and would have you believe it is completely true. Are
some of these people really so single-minded?[/font][/quote]
To me, it's part of the inner conflict between the seed of the
serpent and the seed of the woman. There is also the problem,
of course, of what voice we listen to, the Voice of God or the
voice of the serpent; but being of two minds ourselves is surely
one of our worst problems. It's astonishing how people
undermine themselves.
Laban is told in a dream, "Take heed that thou speak not to
Jacob either good or bad." The words of the double-minded man
although they may seem fair still contain concealed poison. He
disobeyed, Jacob then cursed and Rachel died.
[quote][font=courier]Strange that you recall two such instances
as I also recall two. One of them I am certain was a dream, but
very real to me. The other I thought was not a dream but no one
else mentioned it or remembered it as they should have, so
perhaps is was also a dream. One was brought sharply into focus
from my memory when I first learned in college about "la leyenda
negra" (the black legend). The other concerned a man with a
knife who stopped me and threatened me as I was walking home
from school. [/font] [/quote]
In my youth, hearing people speaking Spanish would make me
afraid and make my heart beat faster. Then I had flashbacks.
I was an Indian on some island in the Caribbean and I was dying.
A priest was there talking in Spanish. Then I had another
flashback; and this time I was an Arab, and again there was a
priest speaking in Spanish as I was dying. Those flashbacks
cured my phobia about Spanish. Just because I died before when
people were speaking in Spanish didn't mean I would die every
time someone spoke Spanish. I wasn't in the hands of the
Inquisition. I can't prove it, but I think those memories were
from past lives.
[quote][font=courier]Like the many very specific parables which
Jesus told, the story of Zaccheus may/should help us to
recognize that we have built facades which need to be understood
for what they are before we can walk directly forward toward
God. [/font][/quote] The story interests me too since Jesus was
not fooled by the facade and thus he was able to appeal to the
"real" Zacchaeus. If we respond to "evil" as if it is real, we
are empowering it, making the other person more trapped by the
false facade. If the other person has guilt, that too gives
more power to the facade.
I think most people are basically good who are under the
illusion that they're bad. Yes, there are a few truly evil
people in this world; but I can't say honestly I know for sure
I ever met one.
Why does a soft word so often turn away wrath? I think the
other person is under the impression that he has to get angry
before people will listen to him. He doesn't really want to be
angry; but he's frustrated by trying to be reasonable and calm
and getting no results. If you don't get angry back but stay
calm, he can then calm down himself. He really wants to -- the
real person wants to be reasonable and calm. By staying calm
yourself, you are not empowering the facade. You are appealing
to the "real" person to emerge, telling him it's safe to be
"yourself." You can't be fooled however by his wrath --
that's not really him. Nor do I believe what people say when
they're angry. It's almost impossible to tell the truth when
angry.
[quote][font=courier]This brings to mind this parable of Jesus:
"When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh
through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none.
Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came
out; and when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and
garnished.
Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more
wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the
last state of that man is worse than the first. Even so shall it
be also unto this wicked generation." Matt 12:43-45
The man was cleaned, but he failed to take action to fill up
that which had been cleaned with something good. The result was
"seven" times worse than the filth there prior to the cleaning.
[/font]
[/quote]
Sometimes I wish this is taught more in churches. Perhaps if it
was taught more, people who are freed from some problems
wouldn't fall into them again. It isn't safe to have areas we
don't invite the Holy Spirit into. Someone who is tempted by
sin can use that temptation as a reminder to do something good.
For example, someone who is tempted to steal could keep a jar of
money that was donated to charity and every time he was tempted
he would put money into the jar. I've never known anyone who
did this; but I think it would work. He would start to enjoy
the feeling of giving and how it really was more blessed to give
than to receive. Sitting and trying to "resist evil" can often
make the urge to do evil stronger. Is it so powerful that we
have to fuss and fume over it, being torn by being
double-mindedness? I say do something good instead. Don't
dawdle trying to resist evil. If it is Satan trying to tempt
someone to do evil, just imagine how frustrated Satan would be
if every time he showed up to try to tempt him to do evil, that
person instead did something good. I wish James had written
this a little differently since it could be read to contradict
what Jesus said about not resisting evil:
James 4:7 Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil,
and he will flee from you.
I don't think it means quarreling with the Devil or even
"resisting." I think the best way to go is to realize we can't
serve them both so submit yourself to God; and then the problems
with the Devil will take care of themselves.
I also believe if one chooses good after having evil removed, I
believe that strengthens the urge towards good. We know that
doing evil creates a habit. I think doing good also creates a
habit. Every time we choose good over evil, the urge to evil
becomes weaker. The "strong man" is being bound and robbed of
his power.
[quote][font=courier]This choice between good and evil, between
God and mammon, has been continuously repeated throughout
scripture. Jesus and the writers of the NT point it out to
people as did the prophets in the OT. Eventually, everyone needs
to choose, even if he thinks he is able to delay. Riding the
fence on this is what God hates, lukewarmness.
"I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would
thou wert cold or hot.
So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I
will spue thee out of my mouth." Rev 3:15-16
When it is a "new tongue" in us from God, then it is God in us
being allowed to speak His Way through us: "My way of the
highway". Men who do not have God using their tongues too often
use this way to make people bend...[/font][/quote]
It seems to me this lukewarmness is more destructive to people
than making wrong decisions. If we make wrong decisions and
are honest with ourselves, we can always change our minds later
and reverse course. That's pretty easy. Reversing course is
very easy. The person mired in dualism is not following
through on things to see if they work or not. He's trying to
go in two different directions at the same time. He may never
find out what makes him happy and what miserable -- he finds it
hard to learn from experience. I am convinced that sin is
what injures people; and if someone sins and is not afraid to
admit he tried it and it didn't work, then he's free to try
something else.
#Post#: 10463--------------------------------------------------
Re: And yet more from Being Clothed with Scripture
By: George Date: February 28, 2015, 9:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello Kerry, Amadeus
Kerry you said, if the devil is tempting someone, and everytime
he shows up they do good, imagine how frustrated that would make
the devil.
It's my opinion that people say things like the devil tempted as
a scape goat to say well it wasn't really my fault I gave into
temptation.
I am not sure that there is actually a separate entity that
travels to and fro tempting the whole of mankind. In order for
this to be so, the devil would have to be omnipresent since we
see evil all over the earth at any given time. In the story of
Job, the devil needed Gods consent to tempt even 1 man, and even
then it reads that he was given limitations on what he could do.
I think, the devil is a part of God as are we therefore making
the devil a part of us. I think, we battle the devil within
daily. Maybe its part of what Jesus meant when he said we must
take up our cross daily? It is my opinion then as I stated
earlier, the devil is not a seperate entity, rather he is a part
of the inner self.
Any thoughts on this guys?
#Post#: 10464--------------------------------------------------
Re: And yet more from Being Clothed with Scripture
By: Kerry Date: February 28, 2015, 1:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=George M. C. Jr. link=topic=990.msg10463#msg10463
date=1425137072]
Hello Kerry, Amadeus
Kerry you said, if the devil is tempting someone, and everytime
he shows up they do good, imagine how frustrated that would make
the devil.[/quote]
I was being vague when I wrote that.
[quote]It's my opinion that people say things like the devil
tempted as a scape goat to say well it wasn't really my fault I
gave into temptation.[/quote]Where do temptations come from? I
think we agree that most of the time they aren't the result of
the Devil personally whispering in ears. Most of the time, we
set ourselves up so well, there would be no need for the Devil
to do a thing.
[quote]I am not sure that there is actually a separate entity
that travels to and fro tempting the whole of mankind. In order
for this to be so, the devil would have to be omnipresent since
we see evil all over the earth at any given time. In the story
of Job, the devil needed Gods consent to tempt even 1 man, and
even then it reads that he was given limitations on what he
could do.
I think, the devil is a part of God as are we therefore making
the devil a part of us. I think, we battle the devil within
daily. Maybe its part of what Jesus meant when he said we must
take up our cross daily? It is my opinion then as I stated
earlier, the devil is not a seperate entity, rather he is a part
of the inner self.
Any thoughts on this guys?
[/quote]Yes, and I'll tell you some of my personal experiences.
I think "Satan" is a complex word with more than one meaning.
First when the Bible says "Satan" shows up, it's never to tempt
ordinary folks. The list is Job, David, Joshua the High
Priest, and Jesus. All good people who get tested. There is
no need for Satan to dash about the planet tempting sinners.
They're already fooling themselves, he doesn't have to.
Someone gets Satan's attention only when he's about to make a
breakthrough that will make him understand and see through
spiritual delusions. That prompts Satan to act.
What is called Satan can be part of the person's Higher Self or
part of other people's Higher Self. This is an angelic force
which sees the human being in the flesh as degraded and
unworthy. People say sometimes we all have Guardian Angels,
and in one way that's true; but in another way, some of them
are angry at times.
The Guardian Angels of children are never angry with them; but
as they grow up and start sinning, their Angels can become angry
or give up on them. The Guardian Angels of children can be on
both earth and in Heaven at the same time. That is not true of
the Angels of all adults.
Matthew 18:10 Take heed that ye despise not one of these little
ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always
behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.
It is often the case that the Guardian Angels are right in their
accusations about the humans. But they are wrong for being
angry. The Guardian Angel who is angry with humans "falls"
from Heaven. He has fallen into sin himself by being angry
with humans. Here we have the fallen gods (who someday will
be restored), and here we have the "angel" of the LORD that
Jacob wrestled with. That was Esau's Angel, a fallen Guardian
Angel. When the Bible says "the LORD," it can mean almost
anything. The angel of the LORD that "tried" to kill Moses
was also a fallen angel.
When the human below is ready to advance spiritually and clear
up his sins below, then it's time to deal with the spiritual
sin of the fallen angel. The fallen angel rises into Heaven
to present his case against the human. God hears the case --
and here by "God", I do not mean the One True God but rather the
manifestation of God for this planet. So "Satan" shows up in
Heaven. He had been cast out before, but he's allowed back in
for this performance. God knows how it should go. It should
go well, otherwise God wouldn't permit it.
Satan makes his case, and most of the time he's telling the
truth. He wouldn't dare to lie to God. God then finds a
reason to excuse it all. If the human has repented of all his
sins, his past sins are of no consequence. God isn't going to
judge anyone based on the past. If there are a few things
remaining, the person will have to repent of them. Joshua the
High Priest had to make his sons get divorces. Job had to
repent of his foolish thoughts about God.
If all goes well and I think 99% of the time it does, the
Guardian Angel is reunited with the human. That person then is
like the mustard seed which grew up first as a herb and then as
a tree into Heaven -- where the angels find refuge. That
person can also intercede on behalf of others -- as Joshua the
High Priest did for his sons, as Job finally could for the sins
of his friends (his children had died because God didn't accept
his prayers and sacrifices before), as Jesus was to do after his
encounter with Satan.
My first encounter with Satan was before I became a Christian. I
was dabbling in all kinds of things; and I was getting very good
with Tarot cards. I could tell people things they didn't know
were true at the time but they found out later were true. I
predicted the future a lot successfully. At that time, I felt
a "presence" visiting me and suggesting I move to California and
set myself as a psychic. It said I could be rich and famous.
I think I could have been too. I would have been selling out
though, so I declined.
I told about another encounter with Satan a while back in
another thread
HTML http://lovegodonly.createaforum.com/arts/thoughts-regarding-the-stories-and-storytelling/msg10250/#msg10250.<br
/>
I also had another somewhat frightening experience seeing "Satan
fall from heaven." I was in the Spirit myself out of my body --
invoking Blue Fire. I was filling the heavens above me with
it. It was like tiny dancing particles of blue fire. Very
beautiful. All of a sudden, a black figure appeared out of
nowhere and plummeted downwards. I couldn't see details, only
the outline that resembled a human figure. I felt incomplete
or something as if I had lost something or damaged myself
perhaps. The black figure was solid black. My first "mental"
assessment was that it was "Satan" as the "other" -- but how
could that be? When I put what I had seen together with my
feelings of loss, I knew it was the "Satan in me" that had been
pushed by the surrounding blue fire until it was squeezed into
taking a form that then could not stay in the heavens.
Is there a "person" named Satan? My third encounter seemed to
say yes. I wondered about it and one night decided to try to
see if I could find out. I found "him" on the astral plane
over Paris. This may make you laugh; but it's what I saw. He
was seated at at a table in a street cafe with one of his demons
sipping coffee. And he was talking on a cell phone. That
sounds so bizarre I find it hard to believe myself. Surely a
spirit wouldn't need a cell phone to chat with! But there he
was. He was handsome I must say, and dressed in an expensive
looking suit that I thought was probably Italian. All this was
on the astral plane, not in the physical world.
I did not approach them too close. In fact, I didn't stay long
since it occurred to me if Satan wasn't bothering me, I
shouldn't bother him. I could feel them though. The demon
certainly didn't love Satan. He was not loyal to him. The only
reason he was willing to be his servant was because it got him
something he wanted. My impression of that demon was that
demons all would like to be Numero Uno if they could be. They
are kept in line only by intimidation. It's how organized crime
is run. The only reason to be loyal is out of fear of
rebelling and because it's to your advantage to stay in line.
Nor did I think Satan was under any illusions about that demon's
motives. They didn't like each other.
That experience made me wonder what Jesus meant when he talked
about Satan casting out Satan and a house divided. It seems to
me the demonic world is very much divided but held together the
way organized crime rings are.
I do believe then that there is a "head demon" that could be
called Satan; but for all I know, it might not be the same
entity that that was involved with David or Jesus. Perhaps the
"top dog" is the one who gets the name? I don't know.
But I am confident that all the Satanic kingdom is a part of
man's nature -- the spiritual nature -- which has split away
from Love and Unity. Every bit of it.
What about the serpent in Eden then? That was a necessary
satanic force that had to be dealt with. I happen to believe
there were humans around before Eden. They lived on the
physical earth; and their Guardian Angels had mostly fallen and
some wanted to be worshiped as gods. Some saw the humans as
such degraded beings, they wished to degrade them even more.
Earth's spiritual hierarchy had fallen -- for the most part --
there were a few exceptions. Eden was established to replace
it. The purpose of "Israel" or Jacob was to replace or
supplant the fallen spiritual hierarchy. Sooner or later
then, Adam and his offspring were meant to encounter and
defeat this hierarchy. If they had done that without falling
themselves, they would have become the "spiritual covering" for
the Gentiles. The salvation of the fallen humans was God's
purpose from the beginning. Gentiles had lost that benevolent
spiritual covering. Israel was meant to provide it. The fallen
gods are also meant to be redeemed according to one of the
prophets.
So it may depend on the definition or context what "satan"
means. That brings up the subject of where Satan is at the
moment. Is he on the earth seeking whom can devour, or is he
in the Second Heaven, the heaven of Air?
Each person is responsible to a certain extent for where his own
particular satan is. But "Satan" as a spiritual being was
defeated long ago in the Third Heaven. He may not go there
anymore unless a saint is ready to rise there and needs to meet
him to sort out spiritual problems. If the spiritual errors
are fixed, he no longer exists as Satan but goes back to his
proper role as Guardian Angel. If for some reason, the satanic
part of that person remains angry, he is cast out of Heaven
again and often cast out of the Second Heaven of Air as well.
He then falls down into the "sea" (astral plane). You may find
this impossible to believe but if the fallen gods remain angry
when cast down into the astral plane, sooner or later they'll
start incarnating as humans. What you resist, you become.
Such are my beliefs.
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page