Politicians need to be on the right side of history

Hi GoldenEagles,

As a general rule, every embodied individual is a Child of God, whom God our Father and Mother desire to redeem, to bring home, and restore to their original heavenly estate.

No, you are wrong. Not every individual is a child of God, as per the word of God. I don't have time to get into it now. And you still persist in your obsession with demonology and some other strange teachings.

Hi GoldenEagles,

I think it would be a help if you familiarized yourself with the first and eighth chapters of this book, BIBLICAL
FOUNDATIONS FOR MANHOOD AND WOMANHOOD,

http://cdn.desiringgod.org/pdf/books_bbf/books_bbf.pdf

I have seen what I believe to be doctrinal error on your part in your interpretation of Scripture. You are offering a lot of information that is not found in the Bible. RCofield and I contend you are reading into God's word something that is not there.

Our authority as Christians comes from the Lord Jesus Christ. It is Him we follow. It is Him that the Holy Spirit testifies to. It was/is Him whom the Father is well pleased with. It is Him who saves His people from their sins. It is Him that is revealed from beginning to end in the Bible. He is what our foundation rests on. If you preach a different Gospel you preach a different Jesus. I hope that is not the case here.

Are you a Roman Catholic? Where do you get this astral plane stuff? You seem to be obsessed with demon possession. Christians are more than conquerors in Christ Jesus.

I think RCofield and I are trying to draw out your stance on Scripture and put your doctrine to the test, as you are putting ours to the test. If you think this is hateful or not biblical then I would remind you of the numerous times in which the Christian in the NT stood for the truth against all kinds of odds.

"Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints." (Jude 3)

"We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought and make it obedient to Christ." (2 Corinthians 10:5)

"Watch your life and doctrine closely. Preserve in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers." (1 Timothy 4:16)

"You must teach what is in accord with sound doctrine." (Titus 2:1)

"As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer" (1 Timothy 1:3)

i.e. - "They arrived at Ephesus, where Paul left Priscilla and Aquilla. He went into the synagogue and reasoned with the Jews." (Acts 18:19)

I agree with RCofield on his views on Mary worship, Purgatory and Transubstantiation as RC views that are not in accord with sound doctrine, along with their views on papal infallibility in official matters of faith, the line of succession of popes, on Scripture and tradition, or that of the Roman Catholic church as the one true church on earth, to name just a few other disagreements.

Looking for the Birth of a New World

walter-in-fallschurch says, “I once mentioned how amusing I found the christian tendency to quote scripture to unbelievers - and expect it to carry weight.”

As a general rule, the effort to bring unbelievers back into the light is not as hopeless of an endeavor as you imply. Your own interest in dialoging with believers is evidence of that.

As a general rule, every embodied individual is a Child of God, whom God our Father and Mother desire to redeem, to bring home, and restore to their original heavenly estate.

God our Father and Mother have placed the central motor of this redemption process, as a presence of a Divine Light, in the heart of every Child, including yours. This is the Light of Conscience, that can grow very bright, even as the seed generator of the Mind of Christ.

(Which tells you something of your own origin)

However, there are strong forces that oppose this Divine Light of the Heart, the message of obedience carried to the outer mind thereby, which is called the still small voice within. Those who have been very Disobedient to God (like rcofield who tramples on the Law of Love in pursuit of doctrinal perfection), have allowed their feeling world to become crass instruments of the demonic influences I have been talking about. Where, we see, in your case, that it can go so far, that the demon world is able to lean on the feelings of the individual with the strong energies of contempt and disdain in the direction of religion itself.

And so, you see this dilemma in yourself, where there is something in you that wants to believe, which brings you into contact with believers, but there is another force that makes it impossible for you to believe, that is the demonic force that leans on your feeling world with the strong energies of contempt and disdain in relationship to anything a believer says.

And your imprisonment to these forces is made the stronger, by these demon inspired conflicts, which you have noted, between believers themselves, to which you say, and rightfully so, “hahaha”.

And of course it is true that your imprisonment to these forces is made the more stronger, by these demon inspired false doctrines, some of which you have listed, which most, if not all Christians entertain, which would turn the stomach of any reasonable mind, to which you say, and rightfully so, “hahaha”. In other words, just to be clear, we see the demonic influence producing in believers yet another condition of irrationality to which you can say hahaha.

And so as I opined in my previous post, I hope you can see the circular nature of this demonic deception that is being played on the minds of both believers and unbelievers alike.

Though, as noted, the time will come, and soon, where high technology sensing systems will expose this truth, and on that day, a new world will be born.

THE AGENDA OF THE DARKSIDE

Walter-in-Fallschurch says, "another thing I find amusing is when catholics and protestants (or any two christian branches/ denominations/ sects) claim the other isn't christian.... hahaha"

Yes, this is the agenda of the darkside.

1. The darkside leans on the feeling world of those who purport to follow the Teachings of the Master Jesus Christ, guiding them, and pressing them, through the manipulation of the feeling world through the energies of fear, doubt, contempt, disdain, and so forth, into renouncing some aspect of the Truth that the Master Jesus Christ brought to us, and accepting something totally different in its place.

(Sure, there are some problems with the Catholic doctrinal structure, no less than that of the Protestant, or the Orthodox, or the Hindu, the Buddhist, and so forth. The rats have gotten into every granary.)

2. Other followers of the Master Jesus Christ make note of this or that departure from truth, and the darkside leans on their feeling world with the pressure of contempt, disdain, and finally hatred itself, pushing the (otherwise devoted) soul into this extreme territory, where their sincere denial of the very Christianity of their brothers and sisters, as Rcofield has done in the case of the Catholics, has them trampling all over the central Teaching of the Master as to the preeminence of the Love Factor, without which, as you can see, the teaching is nothing but a hollow, clickity-clack servant of the human ego.

3. Then, the “non-believers” who have already had their feelings world leaned to a very substantial degree, by a demonic presence, with the feelings of contempt, and disdain, and even hatred for religion in general, their attention goes to the demon created conflicts in the Christian community, and they laugh, “hahaha” as walter-in-fallschurch has done.

But is the demons who get the first laugh, and of course it is always God who gets the last laugh. But I hope you see that full circle of sinister logic that is revealed in this chorus of hypocrisy, every person adding to the “harmony” there of.

It is always this demon influence, the leaning on the emotional body of the embodied individual, with these energies of contempt, and disdain, and so forth, in support of a darkside agenda, that leads to the condition of hypocrisy itself, where the individual is sincerely indulging two systems of logic which are polar opposites. Reason on the one hand, and that which has departed from reason, on the other. Of course, everybody else can see this, but them.

REASON, or shall we say, the process by which REASON is purified in man, is the only way out of this confusing mess. But remember, the First Law of Reason, is Belief in God, and Obedience to His Laws.

A REMINDER TO ALL

This thread will probably time out at any moment now. Per GOLDENEAGLES' suggestion, let's go here when it does:

http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2010/11/tony_blair_on_religion.html

WALTER,

i once mentioned how amusing i found the christian tendency to quote scripture to unbelievers - and expect it to carry weight.
another thing i find amusing is when catholics and protestants (or any two christian branches/denominations/sects) claim the other isn't christian.... hahaha

I find it compelling that some anti-theists are so easily amused that they spend their time on thesitic threads looking for amusement.... teheeheehee

And I "once said" that your posts ring with the sound of a not-quite-convinced conscience trying to assuage itself. Keep dialing. You might get an answer yet.

and/or the claim that the other guy is "doing it" wrong. i mean, seriously, god must have been very confusing (i.e., imperfect) for there to be so much disagreement among believers...

The irony of that statement is palpable in your assumption that the imperfection lies with God.

i said,
"another thing i find amusing is when catholics and protestants (or any two christian branches/denominations/sects) claim the other isn't christian.... hahaha"

and/or the claim that the other guy is "doing it" wrong. i mean, seriously, god must have been very confusing (i.e., imperfect) for there to be so much disagreement among believers...

common (and crazy) ground:
1)god had something to do with the bible
2)the bible is true
4)jesus was resurrected
5)heaven exists
6)souls exist
7)god "chose" israelites
8)jesus floated up (?!) to heaven
9)if you do certain things, your soul gets to live in heaven forever (having faith is doing something)
10)if you do certain things, your soul goes to hell forever

i once mentioned how amusing i found the christian tendency to quote scripture to unbelievers - and expect it to carry weight.

another thing i find amusing is when catholics and protestants (or any two christian branches/denominations/sects) claim the other isn't christian.... hahaha

GOLDENEAGLES,

Part 1 of 2

Rcofield, you had every opportunity in that last post, to tell us why you believe Catholics ARE Christians. But you did not do so. You spent all of your time throwing mudballs at me.

You didn't go back and read my posts more carefully, did you? I have already told you rather specifically that I have a number of brothers in Christ who are Catholic.

You had a superb opportunity in the abortion area, where Catholics work shoulder to shoulder with Protestants on this highest of "Christ Priorities." My thesis was that here we have an example of where Catholics and Protestants share a broad swath of Biblically based common ground. And you had the opportunity to affirm that. Yet, again, you passed over that opportunity.

As I have already told you, my differences with Catholicism lie in the areas of doctrine and dogmatics, particularly in the areas of soteriology and idol worship.

And of course, this is the bottom line, that your own words, as set forth in Exhibit A, and Exhibit B, below, makes it clear that you were setting forth your belief, strongly held, that "Catholics are not Christians."

You have simply erroneously inferred that I believe “Catholics are not Christians,” despite the fact that I have already told you that I have a number of brothers in Christ who are Catholic.

Putting those words in quotes, comports with the requirements of truth, as your words have already been quoted verbatim, and the message stated therein was clear and unambiguous. There is no other way to interpret your words. Again, you had the opportunity to offer an alternate interpretation. But you did not do so.

And as you are no doubt aware, the mere fact of you placing “Catholics are not Christians” in quotes and attributing it to me is not “proof” that I believe all Catholics are not Christians.

In this last post of yours, I think you are giving us an lllustration of the veracity of my thesis. When you enter into the compartment of Catholic/Protestant relationship, you enter into a domain of counterfeit wisdom (supported by the demonic forcefield of hatred) where you begin grasping after straws, and nothing that you say, makes any sense (from the standpoint of reason).

There you go again.

When you approach this subject, it is like you are walking into a stinky outhouse, and you shut the door, and you think the odors therein, are like the fragrance of a rose.

Are you an aspiring poet? :-)

Well, that is a very irrational state of mind, I must say. So far, you have not said a single rationale thing on this subject.

GOLDENEAGLES,

Part 2 of 2

You are falsely charging me. I feel no real compulsion to defend myself against charges that are self-evidently false when one but reads my posts carefully. Perhaps you feel I am being “irrational” because all I have done is simply turn your “case” against me around on you. If so, what does that tell you about your “case” against me?

On that note, I would like to point something out here. Everyone, virtually without exception, believes they are rational and capable of reason. But the fact remains that not everyone in every case is using pure reason. In fact, it is rather seldom, if ever, that anyone effectively applies pure, undiluted reason. Notice:

Jeremiah 17:9 The heart [seat of the mind/intellect/reason] is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

This is a direct result of sin and the fall. I don't completely trust my heart [reason]. Neither should you. Do you not see the problem with your insistence that we “bow the knee” to reason?

So, the question becomes, where do we go, to what do we appeal, to test the veracity of our reason if our reason has a natural propensity toward deceitfulness and wickedness? (And don't assume here that I do not believe that a regenerate person can have the mind of Christ. As none of us are yet fully sanctified, our hearts [reason] can still entrap us in deceitfulness and wickedness.)

Wouldn't it be most helpful if we had a source of reason that was external (outside of ourselves), eternal, inerrant, infallible, intelligible....and complete?

I believe this source to be the Word of God alone, as posited in the 66 books of the completed canon of the Old and New Testaments (2 Tim. 3:15-17). I further believe that, under the tutelage of the Spirit of Jesus Christ (Jn. 16:13), we can apply the common principles of interpretation (the literal/grammatical/historical/canonical-contextual method) to the Word of God and discern what is the original intent of God in every single passage of scripture in the bible. While some passages are more difficult to understand than others, this certainly does not give us license to insert our own interpretation and meaning into the passage. Yet no passage can ever be understood if we dispense with the intellectual tools God has so graciously given every one of us.

You seek common ground with other Christians. So do I. But that common ground can be found nowhere other than in the inspired Word of God.

So what say you? Is the Word of God, the 66 books of the completed canon of the Old and New Testaments—the very Logos (Word) Himself, Jesus Christ (Jn. 1:1-3)--the only source wisdom and knowledge for you?

If not, we should dispense with the rest of this tomfoolery until we can come to an agreement on an ultimate source of wisdom and knowledge. Otherwise, we are just wasting a great deal of time.

What Does the Mind of Christ
Tell us About the Wisdom of God?

Here is a good opportunity to forge some common ground (outside of the Catholic/Protestant) framework.

We see that Almighty God, out of an infinite ocean of wisdom and love, creates this situation where new life must derive its sustenance from mother, both in the womb, and without the womb for a period of time, whereby this relationship between the survival of life itself and its dependence on mother, is written into the very foundation of the child’s psychology, which the individual is intended to carry with him, or her, into the adult life, as it cannot be escaped, any more that a man can cut out his own heart.

If this situation was created out of God’s Infinite Ocean of Wisdom and Love, what message of wisdom and love is contain therein? In the mother/child relationship, here is the Wisdom of God, and the Love of God in form. What message of Wisdom and Love can be discerned from the form of the mother/child relationship?

Granted, that there is no access to the Wisdom of God, except it be through the Mind of Christ, a principle you point to in Colossians 2, St. Paul speaking:

Colossians 2

1 For I would that ye knew what great conflict I have for you, and for them at Laodicea, and for as many as have not seen my face in the flesh;

2 That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ;

3 In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

The question is, what does the Mind of Christ tell us concerning the message embodied in God’s Wisdom and Love, wherein that Wisdom and Love has taken form in the mother/child relationship?

Are Catholics Christians?

Rcofield, you had every opportunity in that last post, to tell us why you believe Catholics ARE Christians. But you did not do so. You spent all of your time throwing mudballs at me.

You had a superb opportunity in the abortion area, where Catholics work shoulder to shoulder with Protestants on this highest of "Christ Priorities." My thesis was that here we have an example of where Catholics and Protestants share a broad swath of Biblically based common ground. And you had the opportunity to affirm that. Yet, again, you passed over that opportunity.

And of course, this is the bottom line, that your own words, as set forth in Exhibit A, and Exhibit B, below, makes it clear that you were setting forth your belief, strongly held, that "Catholics are not Christians."

Putting those words in quotes, comports with the requirements of truth, as your words have already been quoted verbatim, and the message stated therein was clear and unambiguous. There is no other way to interpret your words. Again, you had the opportunity to offer an alternate interpretation. But you did not do so.

In this last post of yours, I think you are giving us an lllustration of the veracity of my thesis. When you enter into the compartment of Catholic/Protestant relationship, you enter into a domain of counterfeit wisdom (supported by the demonic forcefield of hatred) where you begin grasping after straws, and nothing that you say, makes any sense (from the standpoint of reason).

When you approach this subject, it is like you are walking into a stinky outhouse, and you shut the door, and you think the odors therein, are like the fragrance of a rose. Well, that is a very irrational state of mind, I must say.

So far, you have not said a single rationale thing on this subject.

GOLDENEAGLES,

Perhaps if you could respond to my oft-posted and yet unanswered question concerning biblical interpretive method we could begin looking at what the Scripture actually says about some of this stuff you are posting.

GOLDENEAGLES,

When we contemplate our navel, we look to the place where the placenta was one time attached, which provides a record of truth, which cannot be erased, that reminds us, that for a period of nine months, we derived all nourishment from the mother. And from there, we moved to her breast.....Is this contemplation intended to be a pathway into the nature of divine wisdom itself?

Nope.

Col 2:3 For it is in Christ, in him alone, that all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge lie hidden.

The concept of "mother god" (Sophia, goddess of wisdom) is of Gnostic origin. The Apostle Paul wrote the letter to the church at Colossae, in part, to warn them of the encroaching Gnostic heresy.

That makes the above quoted verse quite compelling in light of your post.

GOLDENEAGLES,

RE: On the Subject of Counterfeit Wisdom

Part 1 of 2

Even though RcoField is strongly against the abortion holocaust, the hatred, and field of counterfeit wisdom in which he has become immersed, in relationship to Catholics, makes him blind to the fact of, and the importance of, this broad expanse of common ground.

And GOLDENEAGLES seems to have cleanly missed the point that RCofield’s differences with Catholics lies entirely in the fields of doctrine and dogmatics.

The existence of this one piece of common ground, broad and expansive, makes it the more clear, why his assertion, that Catholics are not Christians, can be rightly defined as a LIE.

GoldenEagles is now guilty of making entirely false accusations. RCofield has nowhere said that “Catholics are not Christians.” RCofield would suggest that GoldenEagles go back and read RCofield’s comments more carefully and with greater discernment. GoldenEagles will then realize that GoldenEagles is in violation of the Ninth Commandment in that GoldenEagles is bearing false witness against his neighbor RCofield.

Not that RcoField is intentionally telling a lie. The force of hatred is pushing him into telling this lie, that Catholics are not Christians.

As RCofield has nowhere said that “Catholics are not Christians,” RCofield is now questioning why GoldenEagles is intentionally telling a lie. RCofield is also speculating as to what “force of hatred” may be “pushing” GoldenEagles into perpetuating this lie.

It is a lie that the forces of darkness originated, and which they promote, for the purpose of dividing the Body of God on earth. Divide and conquer is their motto.

RCofield would now ask GoldenEagles who, exactly, is perpetuating a lie “that the forces of darkness originated.”

In light of the fact that RCofield has nowhere stated that “Catholics are not Christians,” RCofield will now analyze the first half of GoldenEagles’ post.

The power of hatred, pressed upon the feeling world of the victim, by the demonic force, creates a logic within the mind that becomes a counterfeit of wisdom.

Indeed. RCofield would here begin to question the source of the hatred and false allegations being directed at RCofield under the guise of wisdom.

These individuals start with the feelings of hatred, and then spin a logic in support of that hatred, and that logic appears to be infallible, and being in the presence of infallibility, puffs up the pride.

Verily. RCofield has noted the spinning of a web of “logic” in support of apparently hate-driven false allegations of late. Said logic does seem to have a distinct air of infallibility, yea, it even seems that the prosecutor swells with pride at times.

GOLDENEAGLES,

RE: On the Subject of Counterfeit Wisdom

Part 2 of 2

Yes, these are the two prime characteristics of this counterfeit wisdom to which hatred gives birth.

Yes. RCofield has duly noted the air of counterfeit wisdom that seems to accompany this non-evidentiary insistence that RCofield is guilty of hatred. And it does, at times, seem to be characterized by a sense of pride and infallibility.

First you have the illusion of infallibility that goes with it, which you see is loath to bend the knee before the requirements of reason.

RCofield would like to take the opportunity here to state that he “bends the knee” to none but Jesus Christ. RCofield does not insist upon this as a point of pride, but rather as an act of sheer humility and gratitude for the forgiveness of his sins. Christ alone is RCofield’s Lord, and none other is worthy of RCofield's worship and adoration, none other so worthy of RCofield’s unworthy, bended, calloused knees.

And btw: As the Logos that was in the beginning with God and in the beginning was God, this Christ is the fountainhead of pure reason.

Second you have the pride which permeates this illusion of infallibility. The pride is what holds the illusion of infallibility in place.

Yes. GoldenEagles insistence concerning these false allegations against RCofield does seem to agree with that statement.

Is it possible that the great accuser of demon possession may have demons of his own?

Perhaps GoldenEagles should forego the navel-gazing to further examine GoldenEagles motives.

PS. This will be the last post in which I will refer to you or myself in the third person. I have heretofore followed you lead on this, but I find it to be in poor taste.

The Relationship Between
the Navel and the Mother

When we contemplate our navel, we look to the place where the placenta was one time attached, which provides a record of truth, which cannot be erased, that reminds us, that for a period of nine months, we derived all nourishment from the mother. And from there, we moved to her breast. Why did the Lord God want the foundation of our psychology to be built on this fact of life, that all nourishment, required for the beginning of a new life, comes from mother? Is this contemplation intended to be a pathway into the nature of divine wisdom itself?

GOLDENEAGLES,

That is a reasonable request. I will comply with the judge's order in that regard. Contemplations on my navel will follow.

LOL. I’d use a mirror for the personal navel-gazing. One can develop a ferocious pain in the neck otherwise.

GoldenEagles does not intend to spend any time arguing that the sky is blue. The jury has eyes to see this fact for themselves.

And no jury is going to indict RCofield on evidence of the sky being blue.

Of course, when there is cloud cover, this fact may be in doubt in the minds of some. But we all know, that clouds eventually below away, the sun will shine, and lo, the sky will be blue.

Verily. Unless, of course, the sun is setting on your “case” against RCofield, in which case, lo, the sky shall verily be red.

When this thread times out, I would suggest that we could continue the discussion here:
Tony Blair vs. Christopher Hitchens on religion
The former British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, who converted to Catholism, and who turned into a good friend of GWB, debates the famous and renouned Atheist Christopher Hitchens.

Why does RCofield sense an attempt at entrapment here?

What the heck. I'm game.

On the Subject of Counterfeit Wisdom

Before my navel meditations begin, I want to speak about the principle of counterfeit wisdom.

The power of hatred, pressed upon the feeling world of the victim, by the demonic force, creates a logic within the mind that becomes a counterfeit of wisdom. It can be quite powerful. And can drive the mind forward with the appearance of high intelligence, as we see in Christopher Hitchens, who represents a prominent voice for the proposition that there is no God. In this we see, that the power which allows the fool to appear intelligent, is the power of hatred, pressed upon the feeling world by the demonic force in a powerful and consistent manner.

These individuals start with the feelings of hatred, and then spin a logic in support of that hatred, and that logic appears to be infallible, and being in the presence of infallibility, puffs up the pride.

Yes, these are the two prime characteristics of this counterfeit wisdom to which hatred gives birth. First you have the illusion of infallibility that goes with it, which you see is loath to bend the knee before the requirements of reason. Second you have the pride which permeates this illusion of infallibility. The pride is what holds the illusion of infallibility in place.

Now, to illustrate in the present case, I see that one of the greatest goals of the Master Jesus Christ in this world, is to stop this abortion holocaust. I see that this strong sense of morality extends from the Christ Mind, which has its origin in the Light that Radiates from the Divine Heart.

I see Catholics trying to hold the line against this holocaust in a very persistent and strong manner. I see Conservative Christians of the Protestant branch, making similar efforts. In this regard, I see both Catholics and Protestants tied into the heart of the Master Jesus Christ. That they share this very strong moral compass.

Even though RcoField is strongly against the abortion holocaust, the hatred, and field of counterfeit wisdom in which he has become immersed, in relationship to Catholics, makes him blind to the fact of, and the importance of, this broad expanse of common ground.

The existence of this one piece of common ground, broad and expansive, makes it the more clear, why his assertion, that Catholics are not Christians, can be rightly defined as a LIE.

Not that RcoField is intentionally telling a lie. The force of hatred is pushing him into telling this lie, that Catholics are not Christians. It is a lie that the forces of darkness originated, and which they promote, for the purpose of dividing the Body of God on earth. Divide and conquer is their motto.

(spelling correction: Catholicism and renowned)

THREAD TIME-OUT

When this thread times out, I would suggest that we could continue the discussion here:

Tony Blair vs. Christopher Hitchens on religion

The former British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, who converted to Catholism, and who turned into a good friend of GWB, debates the famous and renouned Atheist Christopher Hitchens.

Rcofield says, "The defense hereby requests that ... GOLDENEAGLES be ordered by the judge to carefully examine his own motives."

That is a reasonable request. I will comply with the judge's order in that regard. Contemplations on my navel will follow.

Rcofield says, " ... GOLDENEAGLES has offered not a single example of “biblically based common ground” between Orthodox Protest and Catholic faiths--let alone demonstrated “broad expanses” of common ground ... "

GoldenEagles does not intend to spend any time arguing that the sky is blue. The jury has eyes to see this fact for themselves.

Of course, when there is cloud cover, this fact may be in doubt in the minds of some. But we all know, that clouds eventually below away, the sun will shine, and lo, the sky will be blue.

GOLDENEAGLES,

Rcofield says, “Would you mind posting the specific statements of mine that you see as violation of the laws of God...and then post the specific scriptural laws I have violated?” This is a reasonable request. Yes, I would be happy to do that.

Shall I presume that my repeated request that you answer a very specific question about biblical interpretive method is not deemed by you a "reasonable request?"

And shall I presume that my request to you at November 28, 2010 9:39 AM is not deemed by you a "reasonable request?"

These are simple, straightforward questions. Why do you not respond?

The Defense of One RCOFIELD Against the False Charges of One GOLDENEAGLES—Volume 1—Part 1

Charge #1

First, each of those statements are expressions of falsehood. For it can be shown, easily, that the Orthodox, Protestant, and Catholic branches of the Christian religion generally, share broad expanses of (Biblically Based) common ground. Therefore, these statements can be taken as LIES. And in this manner, all of these statements break the Ninth Commandment, “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour.”--G.E.

Defense of Rcofield: As the prosecutor, one Mr./Mrs. GOLDENEAGLES has offered not a single example of “biblically based common ground” between Orthodox Protest and Catholic faiths--let alone demonstrated “broad expanses” of common ground--the defense objects to the characterization of Rcofield as stating LIES. The defense would point out that GOLDENEAGLES cannot demonstrate “broad expanses of biblically based common ground” between Catholic dogma and biblical Christianity because they simply do not exist, and GOLDENEAGLES is therefore guilty of bearing false witness against his neighbor RCOFIELD in violation of the Ninth Commandment.

Further, the defense would point out that GOLDENEAGLES has failed to recognize that RCOFIELD stated that the “vast majority of Catholic dogma” (not all) is completely antithetical to biblical christianity. Again, G.E. is knowingly bearing false witness against his neighbor when he characterizes RCOFIELD of disparaging and “trashing in total” the whole of the Catholic faith.

Additionally, in defense of RCOFEILD'S statements, the defense would point out that there are quite a number of Catholic beliefs that are unbiblical. For example, Mary worship and the worship of saints stands in stark disobedience to the first and greatest commandment “You shall have no other gods before me.” Additionally, the Catholic dogma of Purgatory finds no basis in scripture, and has been used for centuries to sell “indulgences,” thereby violating the eighth commandment “You shall not steal.” Further, the Catholic dogma of “Transubstantiation” finds no support whatsoever in scripture and thereby perverts and denigrates the once for all death and suffering of Jesus Christ for sins. Additionally, the Catholic dogma of salvation by “works” stands in contradiction to the entirety of scripture, as salvation comes “by grace through faith, and that not of our own doing” (Eph. 2:8-10). These represent only a handful of the myriad Catholic beliefs that are completely antithetical to biblical Christianity, and as such they represent infinitely more evidence in the defense of RCOFEILD'S statements than has been offered by GOLDENEAGLES in his false charges and malicious attempt to assassinate the character of the defendant.

The Defense of One RCOFIELD Against the False Charges of One GOLDENEAGLES—Volume 1—Part 2

The defense requests that this attempt by GOLDENEAGLES to assassinate the character of RCOFIELD be dismissed with prejudice, and that GOLDENEAGLES himself be charged with violation of the Ninth Commandment.

Charge #2

Second, these are hateful statements disparaging, in a broad and generalized manner, the belief system of a large portion of the Christian Brotherhood on Earth.
This is not a small expression of hatred like you would see when one neighbor might run over another’s neighbors cat or dog squasing it flat in the street. This hatred will flash up for a moment, and linger for a time, but it will be directed at one person only. The hatred does not encompass any other person.
In sharp contrast, the hatred Rcofield expresses in these statements encompasses 17.4% of the entire population of the earth, which is roughly 6.7 billion people at present. That means, the hatred of Rcofield, encompasses, 1.1688 billion people. One thousand, one hundred and sixty eight milliion, eight hundred thousand people.--G.E.

Defense of Rcofield: The defense will simply note here that GOLDENEAGLES has made a gigantic leap of non-logic in this accusation that RCOFEILD “hates” 17.4% of the entire population of the earth. Given that RCOFIELD has a number of Catholic friends and brothers in Christ, GOLDENEAGLES' allegation here is so patently absurd it hardly even begs a defense. Further, GOLDENEAGLES makes another gigantic leap of non-logic when he presumes that pointing out biblical error is an act of hatred, and the defense would simply point GOLDENEAGLES to the words of the Apostle Paul himself:

Ga. 4:16 Have I then become your enemy by telling you the truth?

The Defense of One RCOFIELD Against the False Charges of One GOLDENEAGLES—Volume 1—Part 3

Further, one GOLDENEAGLES seems to have a bent for labeling RCOFEILD as being possessed of a “demon” every time RCOFIELD disagrees with him. The defense would point out that this has every appearance of being both pompous and self-serving. Note:

This is a sign of the manipulation of a demonic presence, pressing this level of hatred onto his emotional body, the heat of which puffs up his pride, like a hot air balloon, that gives him the illusion of flying high over his (catholic) inferiors.--G.E.

The defense would note here that GOLDENEAGLES' repeated “rebukes” are characterized by just such condescension, name-calling and sense of superiority, and therefore do not fit the description of a biblical “rebuke.” The defense requests that the judge order GOLDENEAGLES to examine his own motives by the measure of the following passage”

Ga. 6:1Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted. 2 Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ. 3 For if anyone thinks he is something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself. 4But let each one test his own work...

The defense hereby requests that the charge of hatred by GOLDENEAGLES against RCOFEILD be dismissed with prejudice, and that GOLDENEAGLES be ordered by the judge to carefully examine his own motives.

Examples of Certain Instances
Wherein the Behavior of RcoField
Represents a Violation of the Laws
of God - Volume 1 - Part 1

Rcofield says, “Would you mind posting the specific statements of mine that you see as violation of the laws of God...and then post the specific scriptural laws I have violated?”

As I said, this is a reasonable request, one that I am happy to fulfill.

1. Exhibit A (November 20, 2010 12:02 PM)

Psolus says, “I recognized from the start that catholicism is a load of ignorant, superstitious nonsense.”

Rcofield responds, “Agreed”.

Rcofield says, “Given that the vast majority of Catholic dogma is completely antithetical to biblical christianity ... “

2. Exhibit B (November 19, 2010 9:38 PM)

Rcofield says “So…you recognized from the start that Catholicism was not Christianity?”

3. Exhibit C (November 19, 2010 6:02 PM)

Rcofield says, “Yes, given the utterly superstitious and unbiblical teachings of the Catholic church I am quite familiar with a number of people like yourself who were duped into thinking that Catholicism was Christianity. I too have rejected “all of the ignorant superstitious beliefs with which the priests and nuns” indoctrinate people, so we at least have that in common.”

I should not have to explain why these statements are a violation of the Laws of God. Within the domain of reason, it is self-evident. But I will imagine that I am before a jury, and the decision is theirs, as to whether my allegations are correct, that laws have been broken.

First, each of those statements are expressions of falsehood. For it can be shown, easily, that the Orthodox, Protestant, and Catholic branches of the Christian religion generally, share broad expanses of (Biblically Based) common ground. Therefore, these statements can be taken as LIES. And in this manner, all of these statements break the Ninth Commandment, “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour.”

Second, these are hateful statements disparaging, in a broad and generalized manner, the belief system of a large portion of the Christian Brotherhood on Earth.

This is not a small expression of hatred like you would see when one neighbor might run over another’s neighbors cat or dog squasing it flat in the street. This hatred will flash up for a moment, and linger for a time, but it will be directed at one person only. The hatred does not encompass any other person.

In sharp contrast, the hatred Rcofield expresses in these statements encompasses 17.4% of the entire population of the earth, which is roughly 6.7 billion people at present. That means, the hatred of Rcofield, encompasses, 1.1688 billion people. One thousand, one hundred and sixty eight milliion, eight hundred thousand people.

(more)

Examples of Certain Instances
Wherein the Behavior of RcoField
Represents a Violation of the Laws
of God - Volume 1 - Part 2

That is a powerful hatred, which can completely block out the truth, and so thoroughly too, in two monumentally important areas. Indeed, in the same manner that a total lunar eclipse blocks out the light of the sun, is the light of truth blocked out (in rcofield’s mind) in this two areas. First, that these people, who are being hated and disparaged, the Catholics, actually share broad swathes of Biblical common ground with their Orthodox and Protestant brethren. Second, that there are many, many, many good people represented in that population of 1.17 Billion, with whom the Master Jesus Christ communes, and guides, and loves, and shepherds.

Think about it. In that dark ponderous shadow, which hatred imposes upon the mind, the capacity to visualize goodness is destroyed. Rcofield, while immersed in that shadow, cannot visualize the possibility that there might be some good in a body of people, so large as to represent more then three times the population of the United States of America.

It takes a powerful hatred to block all of this truth out of sight, out of mind.

Yes, this attitude expressed by Rcofield, egregiously breaks, demolishes, spits on, and dances on, this commandment of the Master Jesus Christ, “That ye love one another, as I have loved you.”

John 15:9-14

9 As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love.
10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.
11 These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full.
12 This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.
13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
14 Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.

Here, we have, in rcofield, a person who sees himself as a faithful and loyal Christian, yet he stands in utter disobedience and rebellion against the core Teaching of the Master Jesus Christ. And he doesn’t see, nor recognize, the extent of his violation of the Laws of God in this respect.

I set forth this Catholic disparagement issue several times. And he has to ask me to delineate for him, where he has violated the Laws of God.

This is a sign of the manipulation of a demonic presence, pressing this level of hatred onto his emotional body, the heat of which puffs up his pride, like a hot air balloon, that gives him the illusion of flying high over his (catholic) inferiors.

(more)

Examples of Certain Instances
Wherein the Behavior of RcoField
Represents a Violation of the Laws
of God - Volume 1 - Part 3

Third, each of the above statements breaks the commandment that the Lord Jesus Christ gave to his disciples, to obey what is known as the Golden Rule.

John 14:15 - If ye love me, keep my commandments.

John 15:10 - If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.

Matthew 7:12 - Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

No one would like to have falsehood and lies told about himself. To tell falsehoods and lies about other people, breaks the Golden Rule.

No one would want their own belief symptom trashed in total. To trash another belief system in total, breaks the golden rule.

One always wants to be dealt with in the spirit of truth. If we happen to be in error in a particular place, we want to be told. But we also want to be told that we have some things right as well, which is always the truth for most people. We want to be given a balanced picture that the spirit of truth requires. That is how we want to be dealt with. Rcofield has broken the golden rule in each of the above expressions in this manner as well, in doing to others, what he would never want done to himself.

When I confront people who hate jews, I make the same basic argument, that this hatred, which is so large and so intense as to encompass millions of people, can only have one origin, and that is a controlling demonic presence that leans on the feeling world of the individual, creating such a cloud of contempt and disdain, that the soul’s capacity to see the truth, is completely obliterated.

The same with people who hate people with black skin. The same thing is operating. And you have the same situation where you see this Protestant hatred of Catholics. Only a demonic presence can press a level of hatred upon a person’s feeling world, that will block out any possibility of seeing the goodness, and even the common ground that is actually there.

You are a good person Rcofield. There is no intent on my part to paint your whole character as being totally demon dominated. For that would be a falsehood. Obviously, in asking this very question, “Would you mind posting the specific statements of mine that you see as violation of the laws of God...and then post the specific scriptural laws I have violated?” You have proven that part of your soul resides in the domain of reason, where courage in the pursuit of truth is a divine virtue.

But you need to jettison this unclean spirit which has drawn you into a state of total rebellion against the commandments of the Master Jesus Christ in the areas delineated.

(end)

Rcofield says, “Would you mind posting the specific statements of mine that you see as violation of the laws of God...and then post the specific scriptural laws I have violated?”

This is a reasonable request. Yes, I would be happy to do that.

GOLDENEAGLES,

One other thing. You said:

Rcofield, I am sure you understand that an accurate description of specific behavior patterns that are in violation of the laws of God,

Would you mind posting the specific statements of mine that you see as violation of the laws of God...and then post the specific scriptural laws I have violated?

If so, I would be appreciative.

GOLDENEAGLES,

Rcofield, I am sure you understand that an accurate description of specific behavior patterns that are in violation of the laws of God, communicated for the sole purpose of giving the individual an opportunity for self-correction, are not in the same category of negative broad brush stroke generalities that are used to assassinate the character of an opponent, behavior which you have been engaged in, related to Catholics in general, and myself in particular, and now Joel Osteen.

You are simply being rebuked for specific behavior patterns…

So….let me see if I have this straight. When I point out that you are positing doctrine that does not accord with scripture, and that Joel Osteen is preaching a “gospel” that does not accord with scripture—and that without personal rancor or name-calling—it is character assassination. Yet when you say that I am throwing a “temper tantrum,” being a fool on a “fool’s errand,” being a “Bible Thumper,” being possessed of a “demon,” “foaming at the mouth,” being possessed by the “spirit of rebellion,” being “hateful,” being “insane,” being “childish,” have a “brain” that has “bounced off the wall into outer space itself,” and have a “polluting breeze” blowing through my study—well, that just “rebuke?”

Yeah. In think I “get it.” You have it exactly backwards.

It is not about character assasination, even though your pride may be taking it in that way. Pride goeth before the fall you know.

Well, for the record, my “pride” goeth not before me here. I take no offense because you were obviously responding to some statements that stung you, and I have certainly been called worse than that on these threads. What you see as my “pride…taking it in that way” is just an allergic reaction to that which appears to be hypocrisy and double standards—which appearance you just multiplied exponentially with your last post.

I know these posts are rather blunt, but if you will read them carefully you will notice that they are void of personal rancor and name-calling. The same cannot be said of your last 11 posts.

GOLDENEAGLES,

Having read your nine part exposition of Is. 1:18, I think this would be a most excellent point to discuss the "grammatical" part of the literal/grammatical/historical/canonical-contextual interpretive method I have been questioning you about (and to which you have not yet responded).

Just one brief question first. Are you familiar with verb tenses, voices, and moods and their effect on how we interpret verbs?

And please, please, don't respond with a 9 part post. This is just not that complicated.

Rcofield, I am sure you understand that an accurate description of specific behavior patterns that are in violation of the laws of God, communicated for the sole purpose of giving the individual an opportunity for self-correction, are not in the same category of negative broad brush stroke generalities that are used to assassinate the character of an opponent, behavior which you have been engaged in, related to Catholics in general, and myself in particular, and now Joel Osteen.

You are simply being rebuked for specific behavior patterns that are in violation of the Teaching of the Master Jesus Christ. It is not about character assasination, even though your pride may be taking it in that way. Pride goeth before the fall you know.

GOLDENEAGLES,

Part 1 of 2

Then comes the personal attack, again here we see the expression of the spirit of hostility, the personal condescension, intended to whip up emotions of offense in the opponent..

Do you mean “personal attack” and “spirit of hostility” and “personal condescension” like this:

Summarizing RcoFields Four Part Temper Tantrum - Part One--G.E.

Summarizing RcoFields Four Part Temper Tantrum - Part Two--G.E.

In (rcofield) part 1, you make the case against reason, which is a fool’s errand…G.E.

Or how about this:

The spirit of love and reason forbids the use of broad brush negative characterizations…

Do you mean that “love and reason forbids the use of broad brush negative characterizations” like this:

…that is an illustration of the operation of your “mentoring” demonic presence to which you have yet to shut the door.—G.E.

Indeed, this is where the Atheists get the term “Bible Thumpers,” those Christians who hold up the Bible as ultimate truth, even as they foam at the mouth with the spirit of rebellion against the very Teachings of the Master they purport to love.—G.E.

GOLDENEAGLES,

Part 1 of 2

Then comes the personal attack, again here we see the expression of the spirit of hostility, the personal condescension, intended to whip up emotions of offense in the opponent..

Do you mean “personal attack” and “spirit of hostility” and “personal condescension” like this:

Summarizing RcoFields Four Part Temper Tantrum - Part One--G.E.

Summarizing RcoFields Four Part Temper Tantrum - Part Two--G.E.

In (rcofield) part 1, you make the case against reason, which is a fool’s errand…G.E.

Or how about this:

The spirit of love and reason forbids the use of broad brush negative characterizations…

Do you mean that “love and reason forbids the use of broad brush negative characterizations” like this:

…that is an illustration of the operation of your “mentoring” demonic presence to which you have yet to shut the door.—G.E.

Indeed, this is where the Atheists get the term “Bible Thumpers,” those Christians who hold up the Bible as ultimate truth, even as they foam at the mouth with the spirit of rebellion against the very Teachings of the Master they purport to love.—G.E.

GOLDENEAGLES,

Part 2 of 2

But wait, ladies and gentlemen, the condescension of one GoldenEagles is just starting to warm up.

The spirit of hate and insanity uses this method of broad brush characterization as the primary weapon of character assassination against the proponents of reason itself.

Do you mean “the spirit of hate and insanity” like this:

You are throwing a temper tantrum, and out of your mouth comes irrational arguments, that you would expect from a child grasping at straws trying to justify itself.—G.E.

your statements on this subject are so far off the mark, that it's like your brain has bounced off the wall, into outer space itself.—G.E.

…here we see, in your alliance with the spirit of hostility, the expression of a demonic spirit expressing itself through you…--G.E.

..the polluting breeze of hostility that blows through an open window and into your study.--G.E.

Let’s see….. In the space of two posts you manage to “characterize” me as throwing a “temper tantrum,” being a fool on a “fools errand,” being a “Bible Thumper,” being possessed of a “demon,” “foaming at the mouth,” being possessed by the “spirit of rebellion,” being “hateful,” being “insane,” being “childish,” having a “brain” that has “bounced off the wall into outer space itself,” and having a “polluting breeze” blowing through my study. And this before addressing a single argument I posed in my 4 part post to you. Hmmm…..

If you will read back through my posts carefully, you will find nothing in them that even approaches that level of “condescension” and “personal attack.”

I’m sorry, professor, but I can’t see your “spirituality” for the hypocrisy and double standard.

The Correct and Common Sense
and Reasonable Interpretation
of Isaiah 1:18 - Part 1

Rcofield says, “The word of God in Isaiah to which you refer was not a “commandment towards reason.” Far from being a “commandment” to reason with and collaborate with God, this is an appeal for a rebellious nation to awaken to the fact that in God alone would they find redemption and forgiveness of sin.”

I hope you remember my previous reference to the relationship between liberal judges, and false pastors. Liberal judges want to place their irrational, dishonest, and self-serving interpretations on the original text of the U.S. Constitution. And false pastors want to place their irrational, dishonest, and self-serving interpretations on the original text of scripture.

Let’s look at how you are trying to place an irrational interpretation on the Word of God in Isaiah 1:18.

But in this regard, I would hasten to say, that I am not placing a label on you personally as a false pastor. I am indicating however, that as a good-hearted child of God, you are being pushed in that direction by indulging this spirit of hostility that you are expressing more and more in my direction.

My thesis in this regard, is that you have allowed a spirit of hostility which originates in the black heart of a demonic presence on the astral plane, to inject into your feeling world, the urge to blast and character assassinate your brothers and sisters in Christ. You have blasted the Catholics, tens of millions of them, you have blasted me, and you have now blasted Joel Osteen. The same principle applies to you, as to the homosexuals. If you flow with the urge, you are then hooked, as surely as the homosexual becomes hooked through the identification with the homoerotic urge.

Indeed, just as homosexuals are deceived into believing that their homoerotic urges, and their contempt for God himself, are natural expressions of their true identity, this spirit of hostility which you are allowing to flow through you, you are being likewise deceived into believing is part of your true identity. But it is not. This is not part of your Identity in Christ.

You have this in common with the homosexuals. They feel what they feel, and even though what they feel is an abomination in God’s Sight, they will allow their minds to be used to spin rationalizations for it, making it appear as virtue to them. In your case, you feel what you feel, in terms of your expressed hostility, and even though you know that allowing this hostility to flow through you, is to indulge a state of rebellion against the Teachings of the Master Jesus Christ, knowing this, you nevertheless continue to do it, and I imagine we will hear why this hostility is virtue, and not an abomination in God’s sight.

(more)

The Correct and Common Sense
and Reasonable Interpretation
of Isaiah 1:18 - Part 2

Before you attempt to justify your hostility, please review this fact, that we know that the Master Jesus Christ taught that Love is the fulfillment of the whole law. We also know that the Master Jesus Christ taught his disciples to Love their (perceived) enemies. His teachings on this score are ubiquitous. Yet, you rcofield, are allowing yourself to be used to express the spirit of utter rebellion against this teaching. And in those situations where you allow yourself to be so used, you stand in rebellion against the whole law. And what is the REASON for this? I have given you the reason.

It is the very influence of the dark side which has divided the Body of God on earth from the beginning. The whole body of the Master’s Teaching on the subject of the casting out of demons points in exactly this direction. St. Paul affirms:

Ephesians 6:12 - For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high [places].

What is it, that can be so strong, as to turn the mind of the individual in opposition to the whole law, which is love? It is the demonic world, which uses this dark power to manipulate people in manifold ways.

Remember that I said, that Obedience to the Laws of God, that this is the First Law of Reason. What does that mean? It means that in those areas where you are disobedient, you depart from the domain of reason (the mind of Christ). To get back into the domain of reason (the mind of Christ) one must identify where one still indulges a state of disobedience. And one must make the choice, that where one is disobedient, one must become obedient.

This is the process by which the Spiritual Foundation of the Soul is made into the Rock of Christ. My response to peterhuff’s question on the subject of Spiritual Foundations makes this point clear. There is no entering into the Kingdom, unless the disciple has his spiritual foundation correct.

And in this act of becoming obedient, this fulfills the First Law of Reason, and allows the Light of the Mind of Christ to grow within you. (Let that mind be in you which was in Christ Jesus).

In this manner, does the very Kingdom of Heaven become anchored in the earth, through the Mind of Christ in you. Thy Kingdom come, they will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. That is why the saints are depicted with a glow of light around their heads.

Now, as your mind (rcofield) revolves within the context of this spirit of hostility, within the context of disobedience, your thoughts verge away from the domain of reason. Your attempt to reinterpret, that is, to scramble and emasculate the common sense meaning of the Word of God in Isaiah 1:18, is a case in point.

(more)

The Correct and Common Sense
and Reasonable Interpretation
of Isaiah 1:18 - Part 3

We see in the Book of Isaiah, Chapter 1, the Lord God, delineating, in great detail, the rebellious nature of the people of Israel, in verses 1 through 16. In verse 17, we see the Lord God calling the people back to obedience.

And thus, having the people’s attention (verses 1-16), and illicting in them the desire to return to a state of obedience (verse 17), we see that a question is posed to the people, and they are asking themselves, “Ok, how do we get back to that place of Obediance?”

The Lord God gives them a clear and unambigous answer to this as follows:

Isaiah 1:18 - Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

This means, putting words in the Mouth of God, “let us come together and consider what are my laws, and let us consider where you are disobeying my laws. Let there be a realization in you, dear child, by virtue of the operation of the illuminated mind (reason), that you are being disobeident in this way, or that way, in a specific and well defined manner. In other words, see this act? That is disobedient. So stop it. And when I ask you to stop it, you have a choice before you, to stop this practice of being disobedient, and to start being obedient. Only you can make that choice. I cannot make that choice for you. If I could make that choice for you, I would have aleady made it.“

The domain of reason (the accretion of the Mind of Christ in us) is this internal domain of thought, which is illuminated by divine knowledge, wherein the soul sees clearly, on the one hand, what are the Laws of God, and on the other, how one’s personal behavior is disobedient to those laws.

The domain of reason (the accretion of the Mind of Christ in us) is this internal domain where there is an understanding regarding the value of being obedient, and where there is a corresponding understanding of the negative consequences of disobedience.

The domain of reason (the accretion of the Mind of Christ in us) is this internal domain where this choice is presented to the soul in a very clear manner, between being obedient, or being disobedient.

The domain of reason (the accretion of the Mind of Christ in us) is this internal domain where there is the corresponding freedom to change one’s ways, even to make the choice to be obedient, wherein the soul has heretofore been disobedient.

Indeed, the Lord God, in drawing the attention of the Children of God to REASON, was drawing the attention of the Children of God into the domain of the Christ Mind, where the rationale for obedience resides. A rose known by any other name smells as sweet.

(end)

The Correct and Common Sense
and Reasonable Interpretation
of Isaiah 1:18 - Part 4

We see in Isaiah 1:18, then, a superb starting place for a conclusion forming process that will ultimately answer this question, as to why are the people disobedient, and what is to be done about it?

Rcofield says, “The word of God in Isaiah to which you refer was not a “commandment towards reason.”

Actually, as I have shown above, that is exactly what it was, and remains to this day. Indeed, the Lord God, in drawing the attention of the Children of God to REASON, was drawing the attention of the Children of God into the domain of the Christ Mind, where the rationale for obedience resides. A rose known by any other name smells as sweet.

Rcofield says, “Far from being a “commandment” to reason with and collaborate with God, this is an appeal for a rebellious nation to awaken to the fact that in God alone would they find redemption and forgiveness of sin.”

Here we see the false logic of the demonic world, which you are expressing, through your indulgence of the spirit of hostility, which is a tie into the demonic world itself, which maintains a spirit of rebellion in your forcefield, which would rip the heart out of this teaching.

Here, God our Father is showing the people the BRIDGE that will lead them from disobedience to obedience, and thus redemption. The bridge is reason. And you rcofield have allowed your mind to be used to deny the existence of that bridge.

That is a tremendously destructive reinterpretation of original intent.

There is another example where you are in this mode of the denial of the bridge to salvation itself.

(more)

The Correct and Common Sense
and Reasonable Interpretation
of Isaiah 1:18 - Part 5

Yes, there is another example where you are in this mode of the denial of the bridge to salvation itself, at least in your current (demon induced) temper tantrum state, of which it could be said, and quite accurately, that you are out of your mind.

Consider this clear and unambiguous statement made by St. Paul. He said, “Let that Mind be in You, which was in Christ Jesus.”

In this regard, Rcofield says, “I am just all too aware that all human reason is still tainted by sin, and I just don’t agree that reason is the chief cornerstone of the foundation of scripture interpretation. That is reserved for Christ alone, who is the key to understanding both the Old and New Testaments.”

Here you are taking a stand on the ground of Psolus, or Cornbread_r2, who argue that mankind has no objective standard for truth.

You might quickly counter, and say, “no I did not say that.” But you did. Sure, you have an objective standard for truth, in Christ, but you say it is out of reach. So it leaves us without an objective standard of truth, in the same manner the Psolus and Cornbread_r2 leaves us without such a standard.

This “Christ alone” statement tells me that you don’t believe that the mind of Christ can dwell in us. Thereby, you contradict directly, the word of St. Paul. This is the bridge to salvation, Christ in us, the hope of Glory. From the beginning, I have equated the “reason” spoken of in Isaiah 1:18, with this principle, that the Mind of Christ is supposed to dwell in us. Reason = Mind of Christ. This interpretation is harmonious and coherent.

But, because God our Father truly does intend to give man access to the Mind of Christ, and because it truly does represent the bridge to salvation in this regard, the forces of darkness oppose the assimilation of this principle by the Children of God. The demonic world will lean on the world of the embodied individual, and impress on that feeling world, these negative emotions of contempt and disdain, with heavy doses of grinding unworthiness, in relationship to these essential principles, and thus, and in this way, have they kept the Children of God from re-entering to the Kingdom of Heaven.

(more)

The Correct and Common Sense
and Reasonable Interpretation
of Isaiah 1:18 - Part 6

You rcofield, are a good hearted soul. But you, like many, have made an alliance with a spirit of hostility, which places you in a state of rebellion against the core Teachings of the Master Jesus Christ (on love). And you are being used as an instrument thereby, to divide the Body of God. This is clear through your slamming of Catholics as a group, hundreds of millions of people, your slamming of me, through the expression of the demonic methods of condescension and character assassination, and now your slamming of Joel Osteen.

The whole domain of reason, the whole domain of the Mind of Christ, points to this truth, that the world would be on the very verge of entering the Kingdom of Heaven, if the Christian Communities could fulfill the promise of the Master Jesus Christ as set forth in John 14:12. This being so obvious, what is the source of all these negative feelings and doubts regarding this? It is in the demonic world, which does not want the Children of God to believe that this promise could be fulfilled in them.

Rcofield, you need to divorce yourself from that spirit of hostility. And I would hope that you would NOT take this challenge as a slam against your pride, but to use it as an opportunity to set a pioneering example that would show the way for others to follow.

What is the first step towards love? It is a step of self-sacrifice, which would consciously repent for every expression of hostility directed toward your brothers and sisters in Christ, tens of millions of which you have slammed in your statements, and consciously work to replace those expressions of hostility with expressions of at least civility and respect.

Yes, as you consider the rebellion of the children of Israel as set forth in Isaiah 1:1-16, please consider your own, and consider the utility of reason itself, as set forth by the Lord God in Isaiah 1:18, in your own journey back into the Light (of reason). Not in some future time, but in the here and now.

(more)

The Correct and Common Sense
and Reasonable Interpretation
of Isaiah 1:18 - Part 7

As I noted in a previous post, “We are coming very close to the time when high-technology sensors will be developed that will enable all to see into the astral plane, to see the human aura, and to see the astral creatures that infest it, i.e. when the aura is not guarded by a shield of light.” (Nov. 4, 2010, 8:15 PM)

This was known of old, that ultimately, the only hope for individuals, for whom a word to the wise was never sufficient, who have developed a taste for hatred, and thus an unbreakable bond of sympathy with the demonic world, and who are coincidently loathe to give up it, the only hope for theses individuals would be for them to see their “teachers” face to face. In this manner only, would they be given the incentive to take seriously the task of building the spiritual foundation of obedience to the Laws of God, which the Master Jesus Christ has specified to be the prerequiste for entry into the Kingdom of Heaven.

Isaiah 30:20-22

20 And though the Lord give you the bread of adversity, and the water of affliction, yet shall not thy teachers be removed into a corner any more, but thine eyes shall see thy teachers:
21 And thine ears shall hear a word behind thee, saying, This is the way, walk ye in it, when ye turn to the right hand, and when ye turn to the left.
22 Ye shall defile also the covering of thy graven images of silver, and the ornament of thy molten images of gold: thou shalt cast them away as a menstruous cloth; thou shalt say unto it, Get thee hence.

Yes, only in that day, when you see exactly who it is that is whispering in the ear of your soul, will you finally say, “Get thee hence.”

There is an incentive for adhering to the Laws of Reason, which is to say, the precepts of the Mind of Christ, with the whole heart, and mind, and soul, if only to save the soul from having to face this terrifying picture of manipulation. When this technology comes on line, you will want to be surrounded by a Shield of Light, which only total Obedience to the Laws of God can bring into manifestation, rather than seeing part of your feeling world actually occupied by the most terrifying demonic presence that one could ever imagine.

Luke 23:28-31

28 But Jesus turning unto them said, Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children.
29 For, behold, the days are coming, in the which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck.
30 Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, Fall on us; and to the hills, Cover us.
31 For if they do these things in a green tree, what shall be done in the dry?

(more)

The Correct and Common Sense
and Reasonable Interpretation
of Isaiah 1:18 - Part 8

In the current security environment, take note of the course of the river of technological development. It flows in the direction of looking at people, to reveal that which is hidden. Huge sums of money, by large corporations, and small, are being invested in making better and better scanning technology. Why? Because there is a huge world-wide market for it. And when they show too much, in regards to physical body shapes, there is an incentive to probe deeper, into another domain of electro-magnetic reality, where what is revealed, can be more precisely focused in regards to what they are actually looking for, and that is the terrorist bent on destruction.

Indeed, will this technological develpment trend take a great leap forward, when people figure out that the terrorist will always have a demon handler in tow. Terrorists allways have demon handlers in tow, because the demonic presence is the source of the intense hatred that presses the individual forward in the murder of innocents. Yes, this will make security screening much easier. Those who have demon handlers in tow, and substantially merged with the astral body, these are the ones that will be drawn aside and searched.

The demons which instill powerful and overwhelming hatred, these maintain close connections to their wards. They have to keep up the pressure of this hatred, or the victim’s conscience would come forward, and cause them to back off, and not carry forward the mission of murder.

This technology could easily differentiate between those who have levels of hatred powerful enough to carry out a terrorist attack, due simply to the proximity of the demon handler, and the extent to which the demonic presence is merged with the victim.

Of course, people will discover, through this technology, that demons are everywhere, like a grain silo overun with rats. But the degree of connection necessary to motivate a terrorist attack, this will be clearly differentiated from the run of the mill demons, who shadow their charges, poking them here, and poking them there, as opportunites arise. This will be clearly evident.

And therefore, when Research and Development teams get this idea through their heads, that this is where they should be looking, this technology will come forward very quickly.

(more)

The Correct and Common Sense
and Reasonable Interpretation
of Isaiah 1:18 - Part 9

And moreover, when people get it through their heads, that the same principle applies to the very terrorists that we are trying to defeat in Afghanistan, that only a powerful hatred, originating in a demonic presence, can motivate a person to fight against his own freedom, a level of hatred that needs the constant reinforcement by a closely, and partially merged demonic presence, then you will see many of the largest defense contractors entering this field, as the capacity to identify those who are members of the insurgency, well, it will be right there. Those who appear fused to their demonic handlers, these are the insurgents.

God our Father and Mother, they have no desire for their children to be further enslaved by these demonic entities, and they will, at the appropriate time, simply give the key to the appropriate research and development team, that will unlock this mystery.

And then, as it was prophesied of old, the people will see their teachers face to face. And it will be a terrifying picture. If they choose to look at the viewing screen. Though I think that most churches will have these scanners installed at each entrance. And therein lies another monumental economic incentive to drive the development of this technology forward. That is a huge market. You know every church would want one. How many churches are there in America alone? Meet the next billionaire, many fold, who has the wherewithal to develop this technology.

And so, the point is, as far as this discussion is concerned, for those who consider themselves Christian, they need to take action now, to make sure that they know how to build a Shield of Light in their aura, so that they are saved this terrifying experience, when this technology comes on line, which is coming fast, of finding out that they have demonic presences trying to manipulate them, and succeeding, day in and day out. For Christians are the primary targets after all. No one else presents any kind of a threat to the planetary hegemony of the forces of darkness. The prospect of Christian victory, this is what the demonic world looks to destroy. And they work at this, day in, and day out.

If you have any taste for outright hostility towards your brother and sisters in Christ, no matter what their branch, then you know exactly what this technology will reveal, when you walk through this scanner on your way into your church. They will bar you at the door, just as your way into heaven will be barred, if you don’t divest yourself of this “partner” in darkness.

In this regard, it is wise to heed my brief outline of the principles of the Spiritual Foundation, as this is the only way to build a Shield of Light in the aura that can keep the demonic presence from approaching you, and manipulating you through the energies of hatred in any of its myriad forms.

(end)

Summarizing RcoFields
Four Part Temper Tantrum - Part One

I must have said something in that post, "Reason is the place where we are all to gather, it is not an exclusive club" (Nov. 26, 2010 10:35 PM) that got very close to the truth. When that happens, the “mentoring” demonic presence, which shadows every Child of God (for the purpose of making sure that the pure gold of understanding can never coalesce in the mind), begins to throw a temper tantrum. Yes, as the Child holds up the Bible, we see the child trampling on the very teaching contained in that Bible.

But we do not condemn, we simply point to what is moving the feet in this strange dance of irrationality. Hoping and praying that the soul, caught in the tentacles of these many puppet strings, can wiggle out of the control thereof.

And of course, this is what the Atheists use as a club to batter down the veracity of religion, as they point to this utter irrationality, and the inability of the Children of God to find common ground.

Indeed, this is where the Atheists get the term “Bible Thumpers,” those Christians who hold up the Bible as ultimate truth, even as they foam at the mouth with the spirit of rebellion against the very Teachings of the Master they purport to love.

In (rcofield) part 1, you make the case against reason, which is a fool’s errand, and to illustrate this, every piece of scripture you quote, far from refuting it, actually goes to support the message, as to the preeminence of reason, given by the Lord God in Isaiah 1:18. Truly, to argue against the preeminence of reason, is to slam the foundation of civilization itself, where reasoned dialog in our legislatures, and judiciary, is the only thing that stands between the state of freedom, and that of slavery.

In (rcofield) part 2, you take aim at my interpretation of Isaiah 1:18. But your case falls flat. The context supports exactly my interpretation (as I will show).

In (rcofield) part 3, you take aim at the clear meaning of John 14:12. Your case is actually quite illogical and irrational, and self-defeating from a Christian perspective, were every Christian on the planet would love to know how to fulfill that promise, as they know it would elevate the veracity of the Christian religion in the eyes of the people across the whole globe, providing a magnet that would draw many out of the ruts of the lesser religious traditions to which they are currently bound by the pattern of habit alone.

If a school opened specializing in helping Christians understand how they could fulfill the promises set forth by the Master in John 14:12, tens of millions would flock to that school.

(more)

Summarizing RcoFields
Four Part Temper Tantrum - Part Two

Then comes the personal attack, again here we see the expression of the spirit of hostility, the personal condescension, intended to whip up emotions of offense in the opponent for the purpose of breaking off dialogue. Clearly hoping to run out the clock. I will not be knocked off my foundation so easily.

The broad brush stroke categorization of another’s WHOLE expression, as something that ought to be thrown into the trash can, that is an illustration of the operation of your “mentoring” demonic presence to which you have yet to shut the door. The spirit of love and reason forbids the use of broad brush negative characterizations, because on their face, they always represent a falsehood. And God is never for falsehood. Such broad brush characterizations never fall into the category of truth. The spirit of hate and insanity uses this method of broad brush characterization as the primary weapon of character assassination against the proponents of reason itself.

And so it is true, that here we see, in your alliance with the spirit of hostility, the expression of a demonic spirit expressing itself through you, using your mental faculties, like a grand piano, playing a tune that is as far from the reasonable, as pluto is from the sun.

As a Christian, you know the expression of the spirit of hostility is rebellion against the Teachings of Jesus Christ, yet there you go again.

In (rcofield) part 4, you come back for a moment, and bow before the preeminence of reason, and then go on to say that nobody can have it, even though the Lord God calls us to it, and then you deny the truth, that the Mind of Christ can dwell in us, thereby trampling on the primary message given by the primary Apostle Paul. And then you take a slam at Joel Osteen, similar to the slam you gave to the Catholics in general, wherein again, we see you are indulging a state of rebellion against the Teachings of Jesus Christ himself. Though I am happy this concept of demon influence has stuck in your mind, but to refute it, you quote a scripture that has nothing to do with the subject. Surprise.

You are throwing a temper tantrum, and out of your mouth comes irrational arguments, that you would expect from a child grasping at straws trying to justify itself.

I will proceed to the subject of Isaiah 1:18, and I will show, how your statements on this subject are so far off the mark, that it's like your brain has bounced off the wall, into outer space itself.

My purpose is yet to find common ground in the domain of reason, whereby you will come to understand what is working in your world, when it comes to the polluting breeze of hostility that blows through an open window and into your study. If you will get up, and close the window, and determine to keep it closed, I think you will see that we will be able to find common ground, even in the domain of reason.

(end)

The Obama Administration Wants to
Give the U.S. Military a New Mission

Do the American people, through their elected representatives, really desire to transform the U.S. Military into a scripture destroying institution?

Sacred Scripture says homosexuality is an abomination in the Sight of God. Yet, the U.S. Military is being set up to make the case that this scripture is not true. The U.S. Military is being set up to prove that homosexuality is a respectable lifestyle choice. The U.S. Military is being set up to use all the resources the American people have given them, and that only for the purpose of making war against our enemies, to instead, make war against the very moral foundation of our nation.

Just say NO, to this effort by the Obama administration to turn the U.S. Military into a scripture destroying institution. Just say NO to the Obama administration’s effort to give the U.S. Military this new mission, to make WAR against the very Word of God.

GOLDENEAGLES,

Part 1 of 4

My views are drawn from REASON, which is a facility of the divine mind that the Lord God desires all of his children to develop.

And herein lies our differences. My views are drawn from the inerrant, infallible, intelligible Word of God. As even the reason of a regenerate person is still fallible and subject to error, I will stick with the Word of God.

Thus, none of what I say can be defined as “esoteric”.

Given that much of what you are posting is abstruse, cryptic, and arcane, I disagree. That is the definition of “esoteric.”

This is especially true when we both realize and accept this truth, that the Lord God desires all of his children to gather together in the domain of reason.

Actually, if Scripture teaches anything it teaches us that God intends his children “gather together” and be unified around His revelation of Himself in His Word. Observe:

2 Pe. 1:19 And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, 20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. 21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Lu 16:31 He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.”’ (Note that this one passage alone completely contradicts your interpretation and application of John 14:12)

Ac 17:11 Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.

Pr 6:23 For the commandment is a lamp and the teaching a light, and the reproofs of discipline are the way of life,

GOLDENEAGLES,

Part 2 of 4

You go on to say:

If you don’t understand something I say, you can ask me a question, and I will try to explain further. This is how we build common ground in the Christian Community.

I’m afraid I understand what you are saying all too well, and it is self-evident that it does not accord with Scripture. No common ground exists in the Christian Community when there is contradiction with the Word of God. You have managed in the space of about two weeks to try and graft into Christianity the errors of no less than five or six other “religions,” not the least of which is Hinduism. I share no common ground with such.

And this was the intent of the commandment towards reason, expressed by the Lord God, through the Prophet Isaiah.

The word of God in Isaiah to which you refer was not a “commandment towards reason.” Far from being a “commandment” to reason with and collaborate with God, this is an appeal for a rebellious nation to awaken to the fact that in God alone would they find redemption and forgiveness of sin. You have laid your foundation-stone of “scripture interpretation” on a passage that you have interpreted with no regard to context. You forego the call to redemption and forgiveness of sins to focus on fallen human reason. That is how Israel wound up in the mess they were in during Isaiah’s day to begin with. You simply force your foreign meaning into the passage and miss the point altogether.

GOLDENEAGLES,

Part 3 of 4

My primary goal in participating in this discussion is to see if we can find some common ground regarding the reason why the Christian Community cannot fulfill the promise given by the Master Jesus Christ set forth in John 14:12. If this can be understood, that would put us all on a track that would lead us to the fulfillment of that promise.

And yet your primary goal presumes that the Christian community has not “fulfilled the promise of John 14:12.” Both Peter and I would disagree with your basic premise here, but you have not stopped bloviating long enough to engage us on this point. Further, your views of the “greater works” to which Christ here refers are self-contradictory. You have alluded that if Peter or I could walk on water, turn water into wine, heal the sick, raise the dead, etc., we would be fulfilling John 14:12 and that others would be inexorably attracted to us and would believe on Jesus Christ.

Well, no, those things would not be a “fulfillment” of John 14:12. Jesus said that those who believe on Him would to greater works than these not the same works as these. These kinds of “works” would not cause others to believe, for Christ Himself said exactly that in Luke 16:31 as referenced above.

Further, your interpretation of John 14:12 moves the focus of the gospel off of Christ and shifts it to the believer who is doing these “greater works” to which you refer. This again stands in direct contradiction to a multitude of passages that speak to the Christo-centricity of salvation (i.e. Acts 4:12).

So, you are laboring away to get us to agree to a premise that is deeply flawed Scripturally. That ain’t gonna happen.

You have asked a good question in this direction, regarding the principles of scriptural interpretation, and I have engaged you in good faith on this subject.

Actually, I have asked that question no less than a half-dozen times, and you have yet to answer it at all. Instead, you “draft up” a list of your own principles, of which you have posted exactly one in the course of the two weeks since I originally asked the question. That is hardly “engaging (me) in good faith on this subject.” In point of fact, there is little “engaging” going on here at all. It’s more like Professor GoldenEagles is at the front of the class with his luminous chalk and mystical pointer while the rest of us are supposed to wait with bated breath for your next six-part post on a subject that is off-topic. That is not how you “engage” in dialogue.

If you disagree with the interpretive method I posed in my question, just say so and say why. If you agree with the method I offered, say so and let’s start applying it to the Scripture.

GOLDENEAGLES,

Part 4 of 4

It sounds like you have allowed the expression, through your world, of a spirit of hostility (to reason) that is intent on shutting the reasoning process down.

Sigh…. GoldenEagles, I agreed with you that the use of reason is necessary when it comes to the interpretation of Scripture. I am just all too aware that all human reason is still tainted by sin, and I just don’t agree that reason is the chief cornerstone of the foundation of scripture interpretation. That is reserved for Christ alone, who is the key to understanding both the Old and New Testaments (I Pe. 2:6).

And it should be noted here that you are focusing on interpretive principles while my question was about interpretive method. They are two entirely different things.

We can all learn something from that. What is the origin of the spirit of hostility that blocks the children of God from obeying the commandment towards reason contained in Isaiah 1:18?

I guess that was both predictable and inevitable. So…if I disagree with your interpretation on sound exegetical ground, I have the “spirit of hostility” and am not obeying the “commandment,” right? That does seem a strange way of trying to find “common ground.”

Pastor Joel Osteen would refer to that spirit of hostility as the "enemy".

Hmmm….Osteen, huh? You gave away a great deal more than you realize with that statement. Osteen is well noted for the preaching of “another gospel” that does not accord with the Word of God.

I have a more direct term for the origin of that spirit as you know.

Yes, I know you do. You are saying that because I do not agree with you I have allowed a demon to invade my “astral plane.” Well, I shall leave you with the inspired words of the Apostle Paul:

Ga. 1:6-8 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel––not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.

I do trust that in the end you have not bought into “another gospel” though I must confess that your emails to date indicate otherwise.

GOLDENEAGLES,

Part 4 of 4

It sounds like you have allowed the expression, through your world, of a spirit of hostility (to reason) that is intent on shutting the reasoning process down.

Sigh…. GoldenEagles, I agreed with you that the use of reason is necessary when it comes to the interpretation of Scripture. I am just all too aware that all human reason is still tainted by sin, and I just don’t agree that reason is the chief cornerstone of the foundation of scripture interpretation. That is reserved for Christ alone, who is the key to understanding both the Old and New Testaments (I Pe. 2:6).

And it should be noted here that you are focusing on interpretive principles while my question was about interpretive method. They are two entirely different things.

We can all learn something from that. What is the origin of the spirit of hostility that blocks the children of God from obeying the commandment towards reason contained in Isaiah 1:18?

I guess that was both predictable and inevitable. So…if I disagree with your interpretation on sound exegetical ground, I have the “spirit of hostility” and am not obeying the “commandment,” right? That does seem a strange way of trying to find “common ground.”

Pastor Joel Osteen would refer to that spirit of hostility as the "enemy".

Hmmm….Osteen, huh? You gave away a great deal more than you realize with that statement. Osteen is well noted for the preaching of “another gospel” that does not accord with the Word of God.

I have a more direct term for the origin of that spirit as you know.

Yes, I know you do. You are saying that because I do not agree with you I have allowed a demon to invade my “astral plane.” Well, I shall leave you with the inspired words of the Apostle Paul:

Ga. 1:6-8 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel––not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.

I do trust that in the end you have not bought into “another gospel” though I must confess that your posts to date seem to indicate exactly that.

PETER,

Yes, the tree-in-one. I'm sure you are like me, wondering where GoldenEagles pulls the concept of 'Mother" God out of the biblical revelation of the eternal triune God.

Yeah. GoldenEagles is using eisegesis, the antithesis of sound biblical exegesis. He/she simply determines a conclusion, looks for a "proof-test" to support said conclusion and then forces his/her pre-determined meaning into the text. That method has been painfully obvious with virtually every text he/she has alluded to. This is why I have repeatedly offered the question on interpretive method. The literal/grammatical/historical/canonical-contextual method guards against such eisegesis and allows the Scripture to speak for itself, which is why I think GoldenEagles is avoiding answering the question directly.

I know that gender equality is a sacred word in our cultures and I see nothing wrong with equality. I just see God creating us with different roles and different functions.

I agree whole-heartedly. Few are able to make the distinction in our present culture.

How was yours? Did your immediate family get together?

We did, and we had a blessed time in the Lord as we spent much of our day reflecting on His goodness.

Hi GoldenEagles,

I read your six posts. I agree in part of what you have to say and I recognized your hinting to Matthew 5 with your uses of the word 'foundation.' I'll have more to say on your posts on Monday or Tuesday, however, I.m tied up working this entire weekend - shift work.

Hi RCofield,

I haven't experienced much esoteric spirituality.

Everything is couched in such mysticism and cloudiness for the express purpose of impressing others with one's spirituality. The only problem is nothing is ever actually said. - RCO

Yes, there is a multitude of meaning unraveling here as GoldenEagles unpacks his bags and the wool is rolling everywhere. And some of what he says I agree heartily with, but not with much of it.

And I was wondering, have you not had the urge lately to worship God in the "beauty of His treeness?" :-) RCO

Yes, the tree-in-one. I'm sure you are like me, wondering where GoldenEagles pulls the concept of 'Mother" God out of the biblical revelation of the eternal triune God.

You have to read a lot into the Scriptures to do that. I know that gender equality is a sacred word in our cultures and I see nothing wrong with equality. I just see God creating us with different roles and different functions.

http://www.frame-poythress.org/poythress_books.htm

Check out 'The Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy: Muting the Masculinity of God's Words' although it doesn't cover the Father God/mother god controversy, but I think both follow the feminist movement.

Did you and yours have a thankful Thanksgiving? - RCO

Yes, we did thaks, since my wife and I had some of the kids and grandkids over, but our Thanksgiving is a month prior to yours up here in Canada. How was yours? Did your immediate family get together?

The Spiritual Foundation - Part 1

Peterhuff says, “please take the hay out of the loft so the cows can feed on it (as Dr. Barnhouse would say). I don't understand much of what you are saying ... “

As to what precisely was unclear, a portion of my previous post related to foundations was quoted.

"In the foundation repair phase of the spiritual path, the light of the lamp burns only bright enough to expose the next flaw in the foundation, and no brighter. The light output is only increased, as the soul works to locate weaknesses in the foundation, and chooses to do the work necessary to repair them. When it comes to perfection in this work, we see that the higher the light output, the easier it is to find the hairline cracks in the foundation --- which would otherwise escape our attention under low light conditions --- which, if not located, would cause the collapse of the foundation under the weight (of responsibility) associated with the larger structure that is intended to be built thereon."

I am using the term “foundation” in the sense of what a house is built on, so that it stays firmly in place, and does not sink into the mud, or slide down a hill, and so forth. The physical foundations on which physical structures sit, I am using as a metaphor for a spiritual principle.

From a spiritual perspective, a soul would be like a house, which needs a solid foundation.

In a prior post, I have set forth the primary characteristic of a solid and strong foundation, as Obedience to the Laws of God. I describe this moreover as the First Law of Reason, which forms the foundation of the soul.

The term “foundation” refers to that portion of the soul psychology that is thoroughly devoted to being Obedient to the Laws of God, which is the strongest possible foundation for the “house” of the soul, making it immovable in terms of fulfilling the Purposes of God.

The opposite quality, of Disobedience to the Laws of God, would be a factor that weakens the foundation, which under storm conditions, would allow the soul to sway back and forth, or slip off the foundation entirely, when it comes to fulfilling the Purposes of God.

This is in line with what the Master Jesus Christ articulated in Matthew 7:24-27, as follows:

Mathew 7:24-27

24 Every one therefore that heareth these words of mine, and doeth them, shall be likened unto a wise man, who built his house upon the rock:
25 and the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon the rock.
26 And every one that heareth these words of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, who built his house upon the sand:
27 and the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and smote upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall thereof.

(more)

The Spiritual Foundation - Part 2

In this famous scriptural passage (Matthew 7:24-27) the Master is juxtaposing the two extremes. On the one hand you have total obedience, and that makes the foundation like unto an immovable rock. No matter what hits that house, it will not be moved from that rock. On the other hand, you have a condition of total disobedience, which the Master likens unto the building of the house upon the sand. When the storm hits that, there is nothing to hold the house in place, and it gets washed away.

For the sake of this discussion, lets assume that most people start with total sand for a foundation. Their house is not anchored at all to any spiritual rock. As they study scripture, as they read the words of the Master, believe in those words, and act on those words, in that way they take in a spirit of obedience and devotion to the Will of God, and in that way, they are progressively transforming their lack of foundation, from that of sand, to a real foundation of rock.

I understand that these are abstractions. But the facility of reason, when we work on making it stronger, allows us to handle abstractions as if they were physical objects.

First, within the domain of reason, the soul is asked to create a category of self-definition, which describes, in an accurate manner, the many ways the soul is Obedient to God, and to see that aspect of the self as the rock like foundation to which the Master speaks.

Second, within the domain of reason, the soul is asked to create a category of self-definition, which describes, in an accurate manner, the many ways the soul is Disobedient to God, and to see that aspect of the self as the sand-like absence of a foundation to which the Master speaks.

Third, within the domain of reason, the soul is asked, by the Master Jesus Christ, to look on the solid foundation of obedience, as something that is GOOD.

Fourth, within the domain of reason, the soul is asked, by the Master Jesus Christ, to look on the absence of a foundation, related to acts of disobedience, as something that is BAD.

Fifth, within the domain of reason, the soul is asked, by the Master Jesus Christ, to visualize a process by which the GOOD foundation is made better, and the BAD absence of a foundation, is made less and less a part of the soul’s self-definition. (But this self-assessment must be done in the light of reality, the light of reason, and not fantasy, not a self-delusion born of pride, that sees the foundation as perfect, when in fact, it is riddled with termites.)

Sixth, within the domain of reason, the soul is asked, by the Master Jesus Christ, to understand, that the soul who has made the effort to make its foundation into the rock of obedience, that this soul will be able to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.

(more)

The Spiritual Foundation - Part 3

Seventh, within the domain of reason, the soul is asked, by the Master Jesus Christ, to understand, that the soul who has made no effort to make its foundation into the rock of obedience, who allows the house to rest on the sand of disobedience, that soul will not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.

Eighth, within the domain of reason, the soul is asked, by the Master Jesus Christ, to pay close attention to what kind of foundation the person has. As the answer to this question will determine whether the soul will enter the Kingdom, or be kept outside the Gate. Within the domain of reason, these principles, of rock, sand, and foundation, are fused to the spiritual meanings discussed above. Is the foundation one of rock? Or is the foundation one of sand? Or is the foundation mostly rock, and a little sand? Or is the foundation mostly sand, and a little rock? These questions must be asked, and answered.

Ninth, within the domain of reason, the soul is asked, by the Master Jesus Christ, to pay close attention to the commandment set forth in Matthew 5:48, “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” as it relates to the ratio between rock and sand in the foundation. Translation: the Master is looking for a foundation of pure rock.

Tenth, within the domain of reason, the soul is asked, by the Master Jesus Christ, to gather up all of these considerations, and have them all in view, and then to apply his promise, set forth in John 14:12, as the sign and signal to the soul, that it has succeeded in developing a foundation of rock. That the ability and capacity of the soul, to fulfill that promise, is the REALITY CHECK for the soul, that tells the soul, that its house is no longer built on sand, but on the rock of total obedience and devotion to the Will of God.

Within the domain of reason, there is only one question that hangs in the air, as if written by the Fire of God’s mind itself. What will it take to move the Children of God on earth towards the fulfillment of the promise of the Master Jesus Christ stated in John 14:12? There is only one answer to that question. The soul must look to this process of foundation building.

As a practical matter, this can’t be done all at once, but over time. As the soul builds new patterns of obedience to God’s Will, something that makes their foundation stronger, they will still carry with them, habit patterns of disobedience, which are like unto weak points in the foundation.

To a large extent, it was to this that St. Paul was referring, when he said, “For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.” (Romans 7:10)

(more)

The Spiritual Foundation - Part 4

In my previous statement regarding foundations quoted by peterhuff, I was speaking to this transitional phase, where the disciple is in this process of changing his (non) foundation of sand (disobedience), into a (solid) foundation of rock (obedience).

In the foundation repair phase of the spiritual path, the light of the lamp burns only bright enough to expose the next flaw in the foundation, and no brighter. The light output is only increased, as the soul works to locate weaknesses in the foundation, and chooses to do the work necessary to repair them. When it comes to perfection in this work, we see that the higher the light output, the easier it is to find the hairline cracks in the foundation --- which would otherwise escape our attention under low light conditions --- which, if not located, would cause the collapse of the foundation under the weight (of responsibility) associated with the larger structure that is intended to be built thereon.

I call this the foundation repair phase, where the homeowner, who built his house on the sand, is looking underneath of the house, trying to figure out how he can make that sand into rock, so when the storm comes, the house will not get washed away. He will have to dig the sand out, a very labor intensive activity.

But as this process goes forward, the house cannot sit on air. This is an important point.

As he digs out the sand (patterns of disobedience), he must install reinforcement timbers to hold the house up. These reinforcement timbers would represent quickly installed new patterns of obedience.

While these quickly installed new patterns of obedience are not the same as rock (firmly embedded patterns of obedience) they will nevertheless suffice, as the Master will lend his strength to the house support overall, as long as the soul keeps working.

The idea is to dig down to bedrock, and pour concrete columns up from there. Or another option would be to build a granite mountain, and put your house on top of that. And to that some might say, who can build a granite mountain? “But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.” (John 5:17)

(more)

The Spiritual Foundation - Part 5

In this world, where the fallen soul is working on this process of rebuilding foundations lost, what do we see in terms of progress in this regard?

We see that foundations are either totally non-existent, or we see foundations that are “works in progress”, that is, foundations that are in various stages of being rebuilt.

We see NO examples of foundations completely rebuilt, because we see that there is no one within the Christian Community, who can fulfill the promise made by the Master Jesus Christ in John 14:12. That alone is the sign of a rebuilt foundation.

And that alone tells you, as a general rule, that the only place where you will see rebuilt foundations, is within the Christian Community. It cannot happen in any other religious community on the planet. But still, there are no examples of success even there.

A person can have NO foundation, because they have not put any effort into rebuilding the foundation. They are as the leaf on the sea, being blown by the wind, and moved by the tide, in whatever direction these larger forces are moving.

Or, if a person is studying the Teachings of Jesus Christ, and is making the effort to understand the Teaching, and is making the effort to be obedient to the Teachings, these individuals will have at least a partially rebuilt foundation.

Now, in their opposition to the Will of God, and thus to the Teachings of Jesus Christ, the forces of darkness on this planet, the domain of the enemy, the demonic world, are always working against this foundation building process, in one of three ways.

First, they oppose the process by which any soul would come anew to the foundation re-building process under the sponsorship of the Master Jesus Christ.

Second, for those who have entered into the foundation building process, they will work to obfuscate their full understanding of the requirements thereof, so that they will not be successful in completing the work.

Third, for those souls who have entered into the foundation re-building process, and who have succeeded in re-building a portion of the original foundation, they work to push the Children of God off of what little bit of the original foundation they have rebuilt.

In other words, the forces of darkness always keep the pressure on, pressing the soul towards disobedience to the Laws of God.

You see this abroad in the land, where tens of millions have been literally washed off their foundations, by the gigantic mudslides of moral depravity represented by the abortion rights movements, and the homosexual rights movements.

(more)

The Spiritual Foundation - Part 6

Large swathes of the Christian Community have been washed off of their foundations in this regard. Their understanding of the teaching, and their obedience to it, has been very shallow indeed, and thus their houses were not on any kind of rock that would have allowed them to hold the line of obedience on the issues of the sanctity of life, and on the abomination of homosexuality.

If the Christian Community, years ago, had come to an understanding of this foundation re-building process, even unto their capacity to fulfill the promise set forth by the Master Jesus Christ in John 14:12, abortion would not be considered a virtue in America today. Homosexuality would not be considered a virtue in America today.

See what happens when the people get washed off of their foundations. The majority of people, in this nation, whose foundation is liberty, can be swept into a posture of ridicule, anger, and hate, at a President (George W. Bush) who is leading them on a mission for the victory of liberty itself, in Iraq, and Afghanistan! And where are these people headed, who have been washed off of this foundation? It is not in the direction of greater liberty, that is for sure. The raging waters sweep them down a storm channel, which empties into the yonder mouth of slavery.

Closer to home, we see in RcoField’s latest response, how one who believes he is solidly anchored to the Teachings of Christ, can be pulled off his foundation, and into the very spirit of rebellion against the Teachings of Jesus Christ himself. I am speaking of the lately expressed spirit of hostility expressed in my direction, and I would also point to the spirit of hostility expressed in the direction of our Catholic brothers and sisters.

This spirit of hostility, breaking the Teachings of Jesus Christ, like a dry twig over the knee, originates in a “mentoring” demonic presence, assigned for this very purpose, to push and shove the Child of God off of the foundation that they have thus far been able to rebuild.

This inattention to the science of foundation building, where the person is in a basically mindless state, as to whether or not his or her behavior exhibits obedience, or disobedience to the Teachings of Christ, and thus to the Laws of God, and that includes the behavior of the mind, allows the demonic forces to push and nudge people over the line, and thus to divide the Children of God on earth.

This is one of the primary reasons that the Christian Community has not been able to fulfill the promise of the Master Jesus Christ in John 14:12. They have not put any kind of serious attention into the science of foundation rebuilding pointed to by the Master in Matthew 7:24-27.

(end)

RCofield,

"I understand your confusion."

I doubt that, but go on...

"Perhaps I can clear it up for you."

I seriously doubt that, based on your track record so far.

"Perhaps that is because you are unfamiliar with esoteric spirituality."

I am unfamiliar with esoteric spirituality in that I do not have any esoterically spiritual beliefs.

However, I have read and heard many esoterically spiritual beliefs of other people in my lifetime.

"Perhaps that is because you are not conversant with the bible."

I am not conversant with your bible in that I have not read it, and I do not believe that it was written by a magical entity.

In my experience, however, of the people who do read it, and who do believe that it was written by a magical entity, few of them subscribe to the same or similar interpretations of it.

Hence your and peterhuff's disagreements with, not only GoldenEagles, but many, if not most, of the true believers who post and comment here.

"Perhaps that is because you have your fingers in your ears (you remember the proverbial monkey)."

You previously accused me of having my hands over my eyes.

How can I also have my fingers in my ears, if I already have my hands over my eyes?

"Perhaps you wonder that because you missed the nuance due to your lack of familiarity with the bible."

I am not familiar with your bible in that I have not read it, but I have seen and heard many excerpts from it by many people, few of whom agree on the nuances of the interpretations of the excerpts.

"Perhaps that is because you are not conversant with the bible..."

I am not conversant with it in that I have not read it, and I do not believe that it was written by a magical entity.

"...and do not recognize the difference between superstition and reality."

I have actually become quite good at recognizing superstition.

Reason is the place where we are all
to gather, it is not an exclusive club.

Rcofield says, “Such is the nature of esoteric sprituality [sic]. Everything is couched in such mysticism and cloudiness for the express purpose of impressing others with one's spirituality.”

My views are drawn from REASON, which is a facility of the divine mind that the Lord God desires all of his children to develop. The apparent example of Psolus not withstanding. Thus, none of what I say can be defined as “esoteric”. This is especially true when we both realize and accept this truth, that the Lord God desires all of his children to gather together in the domain of reason. If you don’t understand something I say, you can ask me a question, and I will try to explain further. This is how we build common ground in the Christian Community. And this was the intent of the commandment towards reason, expressed by the Lord God, through the Prophet Isaiah.

Moreover, as to your assignment to me of this motive, regarding "impressing others with one's spirituality," this is untrue. My primary goal in participating in this discussion is to see if we can find some common ground regarding the reason why the Christian Community cannot fulfill the promise given by the Master Jesus Christ set forth in John 14:12. If this can be understood, that would put us all on a track that would lead us to the fulfillment of that promise.

You have asked a good question in this direction, regarding the principles of scriptural interpretation, and I have engaged you in good faith on this subject.

It sounds like you have allowed the expression, through your world, of a spirit of hostility (to reason) that is intent on shutting the reasoning process down. We can all learn something from that. What is the origin of the spirit of hostility that blocks the children of God from obeying the commandment towards reason contained in Isaiah 1:18?

Pastor Joel Osteen would refer to that spirit of hostility as the "enemy". I have a more direct term for the origin of that spirit as you know.

PEREGRINE,

I understand your confusion. Perhaps I can clear it up for you.

I've been thinking that exact same thing for quite some time; even before GoldenEagles made his/her appearance.

Perhaps that is because you are unfamiliar with esoteric spirituality.

I've noticed that, also, for quite some time.

Perhaps that is because you are not conversant with the bible.

I've noticed that, also, for quite some time.

Perhaps that is because you have your fingers in your ears (you remember the proverbial monkey).

And I am wondering, have you not had the urge lately to worship your god in the "beauty of his threeness"?

Perhaps you wonder that because you missed the nuance due to your lack of familiarity with the bible.

You two appear to be as amused by GoldenEagles superstitious beliefs as I am of yours.

Perhaps that is because you are not conversant with the bible and do not recognize the difference between superstition and reality.

RCofield,

"Such is the nature of esoteric sprituality."

I've been thinking that exact same thing for quite some time; even before GoldenEagles made his/her appearance.

"Everything is couched in such mysticism and cloudiness for the express purpose of impressing others with one's spirituality."

I've noticed that, also, for quite some time.

"The only problem is nothing is ever actually said."

I've noticed that, also, for quite some time.

"And I was wondering, have you not had the urge lately to worship God [sic] in the "beauty of His [sic] treeness?""

And I am wondering, have you not had the urge lately to worship your god in the "beauty of his threeness"?

You two appear to be as amused by GoldenEagles superstitious beliefs as I am of yours.

PETERHUFF,

GoldenEagles, please take the hay out of the loft so the cows can feed on it (as Dr. Barnhouse would say). I don't understand much of what you are saying although I see a possible reference in there to a passage like John 3:19-21, which would have been easier to understand. If you want to communicate then simpler is better.

Such is the nature of esoteric sprituality. Everything is couched in such mysticism and cloudiness for the express purpose of impressing others with one's spirituality. The only problem is nothing is ever actually said.

And I was wondering, have you not had the urge lately to worship God in the "beauty of His treeness?" :-)

Did you and yours have a thankful Thanksgiving?

GoldenEagles,

"PSolus says, "Perhaps you can try thinking about something else?"

Yes, I wrote that; but it appears that you cannot think about anything else.

"As the nation continues to stumble, mindlessly, and blindly, in the direction of this gaping abyss, and comes to this place, even at this very moment, where it teeters on the very edge, wherein the very next step will carry the untethered dreamer into the salivating arms of this hungry void of darkness and terror, it is important to ring the alarm bells."

Are you saying that something is about to happen?

What can it be; the "end of times®"?

"The foregoing elucidation of the homosexual "womb", which you recommend that we not think about, lays bare the core nature of homosexuality."

Does it now?

"What is the core nature of homosexuality?"

I don't know; you tell me, you seem to be the expert.

"It is undiluted Hatred of God [sic]."

Holy crap!

"What are the consequences of adopting a national policy, related to allowing open homosexuality in the U.S. Military, which brings the whole nation into an approving posture visavis [sic] the expression of this kind of hatred in the direction of the Lord [sic] God [sic]?"

Probably nothing.

"What are the implications, inherent in this, in terms of any realistic expectation that the nation might have of continuing to receive the Blessings of Divine [sic] Providence [sic]?"

Again, probably nothing.

"When these consequences and implications are gathered up within the mind's eye, what we see is a nation bent on committing an act of national suicide."

Again, holy crap!

Regarding the homosexual "womb"

PSolus says, "Perhaps you can try thinking about something else?"

As the nation continues to stumble, mindlessly, and blindly, in the direction of this gaping abyss, and comes to this place, even at this very moment, where it teeters on the very edge, wherein the very next step will carry the untethered dreamer into the salivating arms of this hungry void of darkness and terror, it is important to ring the alarm bells.

The foregoing elucidation of the homosexual "womb", which you recommend that we not think about, lays bare the core nature of homosexuality.

What is the core nature of homosexuality? It is undiluted Hatred of God.

What are the consequences of adopting a national policy, related to allowing open homosexuality in the U.S. Military, which brings the whole nation into an approving posture visavis the expression of this kind of hatred in the direction of the Lord God?

What are the implications, inherent in this, in terms of any realistic expectation that the nation might have of continuing to receive the Blessings of Divine Providence?

When these consequences and implications are gathered up within the mind's eye, what we see is a nation bent on committing an act of national suicide.

Hi GoldenEagles,

In the foundation repair phase of the spiritual path, the light of the lamp burns only bright enough to expose the next flaw in the foundation, and no brighter. The light output is only increased, as the soul works to locate weaknesses in the foundation, and chooses to do the work necessary to repair them. When it comes to perfection in this work, we see that the higher the light output, the easier it is to find the hairline cracks in the foundation --- which would otherwise escape our attention under low light conditions --- which, if not located, would cause the collapse of the foundation under the weight (of responsibility) associated with the larger structure that is intended to be built thereon.

GoldenEagles, please take the hay out of the loft so the cows can feed on it (as Dr. Barnhouse would say). I don't understand much of what you are saying although I see a possible reference in there to a passage like John 3:19-21, which would have been easier to understand. If you want to communicate then simpler is better.

With these references, along with the other ten, it is clear, that the Lord God wants us to view him at least symbolically, as the tree of life. That this is the way the Lord God sees himself. And thus, if the Lord God sees himself in this way, we need to accept that as a flawless fact of his identity. -GE

This is the way the Lord sees Himself, His identity as a tree?

He uses metaphors, imagery and personification (such as using trees) and other figures of speech to convey word pictures and ideas and concepts to explain things to man, just like He uses anthropomorphism like ‘the eyes of the Lord are everywhere’ (or ‘His hands’) to express to us that He sees all things, even though He is not physical like man but Spirit and as such invisible. That does not make Him, in part, a tree, nor would I contend that He sees Himself this way, but uses this type of language to convey a symbolic message to us that Jesus Christ is life. When Jesus said ‘I am the bread of life’ He was conveying to us a spiritual truth that is explained in the context and elsewhere in Scripture. Just as God gave the Israelites actual physical manna in the desert to sustain them, so He gives believers the Son to nourish and sustain us eternally.

Regarding the homosexual "womb"

PSolus says, "Perhaps you can try thinking about something else?"

As the nation continues to stumble, mindlessly, and blindly, in the direction of this gaping abyss, and comes to this place, even at this very moment, where it teeters on the very edge, wherein the very next step will carry the untethered dreamer into the salivating arms of this hungry void of darkness and terror, it is important to ring the alarm bells.

The foregoing elucidation of the homosexual "womb", which you recommend that we not think about, lays bare the core nature of homosexuality.

What is the core nature of homosexuality? It is undiluted Hatred of God.

What are the consequences of adopting a national policy, related to allowing open homosexuality in the U.S. Military, which brings the whole nation into an approving posture visavis the expression of this kind of hatred in the direction of the Lord God?

What are the implications, inherent in this, in terms of any realistic expectation that the nation might have of continuing to receive the Blessings of Divine Providence?

When these consequences and implications are gathered up within the mind's eye, what we see is a nation bent on committing an act of national suicide.

PART 2

While this does not have any direct connection to the “mother” principle, it goes to show you, that the next logical step you took, to argue that the mother principle was not part of the identity of God, was into the domain of error. - GE

If I think I am a tree does that make me a tree? As a man thinks, so he is. If I say that I have a hide as thick as the bark on that tree, does that make me in part like the bark on a tree? Figurative language is used to convey and express an idea. God uses it throughout Scripture to convey a truth about Him, but that does not make Him in part a tree. He transcends His creation. But on the other hand the names of God reveal something of His character. Nowhere in Scripture, as you have admitted, does He call Himself mother or do I see this idea conveyed. That does not fit who He is. But He has revealed Himself as Father and a father of the fatherless. Jesus, God incarnate reveals Him this way. Jesus teaches the disciples to pray to the Father. The apostle Paul told believers they had received the Spirit of sonship and by Him we cry, ‘Abba, Father’ not mother.

Now what right do you have to go against the way God has revealed Himself and add to His revelation something that He has not disclosed to us? You read this into the Scriptures rather than take it out of Scripture.

“Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ for the faith of God’s elect and a knowledge of the TRUTH that leads to godliness - a faith and knowledge resting on the hope of eternal life, which God, who DOES NOT LIE, promised before the beginning of time, and at His appointed season He brought HIS WORD TO LIGHT through the preaching entrusted to me by the command of God our Savior….Grace and peace from God THE FATHER and Jesus Christ our Savior. “ (Titus 1:1-3, 4B)

GoldenEagles,

"What does it say about this obsession to EJACULATE the God-Given seed of life, by which populations are renewed, in which all hopes for the victory of mankind are invested, into the excrement cavity?"

You are aware, aren't you, that you do not have to do that if you do not want to?

"What does it say about this obsession to RECEIVE the God-Given seed of life, by which populations are renewed, in which all hopes for the victory of mankind are invested, into the excrement cavity?"

You are aware, aren't you, that you do not have to do that, either, if you do not want to?

"Think about it. What is the message you send when you force the face of your enemy into a pile of excrement?"

Perhaps you can try not to think about it?

Perhaps you are thinking way more than you should?

Perhaps you can try thinking about something else?

(returning for a moment to the
subject of the article above...)

EVERY HOMOSEXUAL ACT IS
A HATE CRIME AGAINST GOD

Everybody knows this is true if they would only stop and think about. Every homosexual act is a Slam against God.

What does it say about this obsession to EJACULATE the God-Given seed of life, by which populations are renewed, in which all hopes for the victory of mankind are invested, into the excrement cavity? The message is quite clear.

Homosexuals call it love. Common sense calls it HATE.

What does it say about this obsession to RECEIVE the God-Given seed of life, by which populations are renewed, in which all hopes for the victory of mankind are invested, into the excrement cavity? The message is quite clear.

Homosexuals call it love. Common sense calls it HATE.

Think about it. What is the message you send when you force the face of your enemy into a pile of excrement? This does not say, I love you. This does not say, I respect you. This does not say I adore you. It says, I Hate You, I Despise you, therefore eat [expletive deleted].

This is what the controlling demonic presence is saying to the Very Face of God in every homosexual act. Eat [expletive deleted].

All laws against sodomy were essentially our first form of hate crime legislation.

For an organization whose success depends on the intercession of Divine Providence, which is the case for the U.S. Military, it is wise to ban hate crimes against God within the ranks.

Rcofield says, "And you really don't have a set of 'principles' for interpreting scripture, do you?"

Actually, I have additional principles drafted up. We need to take them one at a time. They build on each other, from the foundation of reason, up. I am gratified that you agreed with my First Principle regarding the Lord God's declaration regarding the importance of reason. Which I am sure you understand is a reasonable and essential foundation. I am sure when you see the others, you will express a similar level of approval.

A THANKSGIVING PSALM

Oh give thanks to the LORD; call upon his name; make known his deeds among the peoples! Sing to him; sing praises to him; tell of all his wondrous works! Glory in his holy name; let the hearts of those who seek the LORD rejoice!

Seek the LORD and his strength; seek his presence continually! Remember the wondrous works that he has done, his miracles and the judgments he uttered. He is the LORD our God; his judgments are in all the earth.

Sing to the LORD, all the earth! Tell of his salvation from day to day. Declare his glory among the nations, his marvelous works among all the peoples! For great is the LORD, and greatly to be praised, and he is to be held in awe above all gods.

For all the gods of the peoples are idols, but the LORD made the heavens. Splendor and majesty are before him; strength and joy are in his place. Ascribe to the LORD, O clans of the peoples, ascribe to the LORD glory and strength!

Ascribe to the LORD the glory due his name; bring thanksgiving and come before him! Worship the LORD in the splendor of holiness; tremble before him, all the earth; yes, the world is established; it shall never be moved.

Let the heavens be glad, and let the earth rejoice, and let them say among the nations, “The LORD reigns!” Let the sea roar, and all that fills it; let the field exult, and everything in it! Then shall the trees of the forest sing for joy before the LORD, for he comes to judge the earth.

Oh give thanks to the LORD, for he is good; for his steadfast love endures forever!—I Chronicles 16

Have a thankful Thanksgiving.

GOLDENEAGLES,

You know, you could save us all a great deal of time if you would just come right out and tell us how our failure to embrace God as our "mother" is keeping us from fulfilling John 14:12. At the rate you are going, we will all be "sleeping with our fathers" before you ever get to your point.

And you really don't have a set of "principles" for interpreting scripture, do you? Your approach is esoteric and eisegetical with your mystical conclusions drawn prior to consulting the scripture.

You seem to be avoiding this, so I'll ask you yet again: Do you agree that the literal/grammatical/historical/canonical-contextual approah to scripture interpretation yields the original intent of God's Word?

A simple yes or no would suffice.

And a "yes" to this time-tested and proven method would quickly eliminate the semantic games you are playing with your interpretation of Scripture.

Peterhuff Answers the Question - YES! - Part 1

This means that the Lamp of Reason --- as it has been so far defined, as the magic lantern we use to locate and fill gaps in our foundation of obedience --- is operating at some level in your temple.

As I have explained, if we can locate those flaws (in the foundation of obedience) and repair them, with an appropriate application of divine obedience, that is how we work to bring the lamp of reason to a higher light output --- keeping in mind that the Lord God, through the mediatorship of Christ, is always in control of the light output of each individual lamp of reason.

In the foundation repair phase of the spiritual path, the light of the lamp burns only bright enough to expose the next flaw in the foundation, and no brighter. The light output is only increased, as the soul works to locate weaknesses in the foundation, and chooses to do the work necessary to repair them. When it comes to perfection in this work, we see that the higher the light output, the easier it is to find the hairline cracks in the foundation --- which would otherwise escape our attention under low light conditions --- which, if not located, would cause the collapse of the foundation under the weight (of responsibility) associated with the larger structure that is intended to be built thereon.

When visualizing what the Lord God intends to build on each foundation, we need only look to the promise of the Master Jesus Christ set forth in John 14:12.

And so, in the midst of this light of reason, and your choice to be obedient to the law inherent in it, in terms of this one clearly stated principle, a solid piece of ground has appeared under your feet, where perhaps there was no solid ground before.

But what happens when you step to the right, or to the left? Is that solid ground too? Let’s see.

Peterhuff says, “Yes, the principle, but just because the principle exists in God's infinite mind, does not necessarily mean that it applies to God's Person.”

I see in your qualification of the “yes” response, the word “necessarily” inserted. This means the light of reason is bright enough to penetrate further into the domain of truth, whereby you found it impossible to completely shut the door regarding the relationship of the content of the heart and mind to the identity of the “person”.

In taking the next step to offer a point of logical validation for the proposition that the content of the heart and mind does not “necessarily” speak to the identity of the “person”, you offer up a tree as an example, saying, ”A full understanding of a tree and all of its connectedness with everything else in creation exists in God's mind, but that does not make God, in part, a tree.”

There are 13 references to the tree of life in the Old and New Testaments. I would like to quote the three (3) from the Book of Revelation:

(more)

Peterhuff Answers the Question - YES! - Part 2

Revelation 2:7 - He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.

Revelation 22:2 - In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

Revelation 22:14 - Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

With these references, along with the other ten, it is clear, that the Lord God wants us to view him at least symbolically, as the tree of life. That this is the way the Lord God sees himself. And thus, if the Lord God sees himself in this way, we need to accept that as a flawless fact of his identity.

While this does not have any direct connection to the “mother” principle, it goes to show you, that the next logical step you took, to argue that the mother principle was not part of the identity of God, was into the domain of error.

Is it not true, then, that this statement --- ”A full understanding of a tree and all of its connectedness with everything else in creation exists in God's mind, but that does not make God, in part, a tree.” --- is at least an expression of ignorance when it comes to God’s own desire for us to see him, at least in part, as the tree of life?

Or perhaps it would be better to phrase the question in another way.

In taking the next step to offer a point of logical validation for the proposition that the content of the heart and mind does not “necessarily” speak to the identity of the “person”, that you took a step more in the direction of error, than you did in the direction of truth?

Or perhaps, we could jump over that question altogether and get more directly to the point:

1) Isn’t it true, as a general rule, that the ideas, beliefs, and values, and so forth, that a person has in his heart and mind, that this defines who that person is?

2) And if you stipulate to this fact, that the principle of motherhood exists in the heart and mind of the Lord God, which you have stipulated, and moreover that God must value the principle greatly, as his expression of it is so pervasive in the creation, then it must follow that this principle of motherhood must, at least in part, define the identity of the Lord God?

3) And it is not, then, only a matter of determining to what extent this principle of motherhood defines the identity of the Lord God?

Even if your opening bid would begin at 1%, or less, and even if I would remain firm on 50%, doesn’t this mean that we have found a piece of common ground, even by the light of reason?

(end)

Hi GoldenEagles,

Peterhuff, my laborious exposition, with my luminous chalk, rather nearly luminous chalk, and so forth, the two circles, and a little bit of captioning, and a lot of posturing and pointing, was meant to make this point, that reason, in conjunction with our eyes, tells us that the principle of motherhood exists in the mind and the heart of God. Do you deny that, or admit that?"

Yes, the principle, but just because the principle exists in God's infinite mind, does not necessarily mean that it applies to God's Person.

A full understanding of a tree and all of its connectedness with everything else in creation exists in God's mind, but that does not make God, in part, a tree.

He has revealed to us what He wants us to know for now, although one day we will know as we are fully known. Nowhere does He reveal to us that He is 'Mother.'

If you were to see God what would His image and likeness be, since, remember, God is Spirit? When the author of Hebrews writes, "The Son is the exact radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of His Being" (Hebrews 1:3) what is he referring to?

Or when Paul writes, "He is the image of the invisible God" (Colossians 1:15) what is he referring to? How can something invisible have an image? No, to see the qualities and attributes of Jesus in all His goodness and purity and holiness is more to the point.

"If you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from His love, if any fellowship with the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion, then make my joy complete by being LIKE-MINDED, having the same love, being one in spirit and purpose. Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain concept, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others. Your attitude should be that of Christ Jesus:" (Philippians 2:1-5)
At the Fall the image and likeness of God was distorted in man. That new nature that God gave Adam (i.e., in the image of God) was marred at the Fall. Because of sin 'There is none righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away; they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.' (Romans 3:10-12)

PART 2

So that nature, the likeness and image of God, that goodness that God had made, that He saw and said was 'very good' which included making man in His image and likeness now became the problem with the Fall. That knowledge, that good standing, that purity, that holiness that man had walked with God in the Garden was now tarnished with the knowledge of not only good, but also evil and of no longer walking in God’s ways, but in walking in the flesh, as man now saw fit.

That is why in the NT we see Christ Jesus restoring that image and likeness when a person is born anew. The new man/woman puts on the image of Christ. He/she is given a new nature, a nature that one again reflects the image and likeness of God.

“Again, the gift is not like the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through the one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and the gift of RIGHTEOUSNESS reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ. Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of RIGHTEOUSNESS was justification that brings life for all men. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one Man the many will be made RIGHTEOUS.” (Roman5:16-19)

Made righteous, as in the likeness of God!

“For those God foreknew He also predestined to be conformed to the LIKENESS OF HIS SON.” (Romans 8:29)

“And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the image of the Man from heaven.” (1 Corinthians 15:49)

What was the image and likeness of Christ, the Second Adam? It was “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control” – the very fruit of God’s Spirit, not the fruit of the sinful nature, the nature of the First Adam, man after the Fall (Galatians 5:22, for the fruit of the Spirit and 5:19, for the fruit of the sinful nature).

“If the ministry that condemns men is glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings RIGHTEOUSNESS….And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into His LIKENESS with ever increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.” (2 Corinthians 3:9, 18)

“You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; to be made new in the attitude of your MINDS; and to put on the NEW SELF, CREATED to be LIKE GOD in TRUE RIGHTEOUSNESS AND HOLINESS.” (Ephesians 4:22-24)

PART 3
As for purity,

“Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when He appears, we shall be LIKE Him, for we shall see Him AS HE IS. Everyone who has this hope in Him purifies himself, JUST AS HE IS PURE.” (1 John 3:2-3)

(See also 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1; Matt. 5:8; 1 Tim. 5:22)

I can make the same points for being created in His likeness as being able to know Him intimately and in a loving relationship. Like no animal that God has made man is different because man can reason, know God and love Him. Man was given dominion over the animals, over the whole earth, as stewards of God creation, just as God has dominion over all things. That is also part of the image and likeness of God in us. We are able to rule as subordinate to God, because God has decreed it, just like He is able and does rule as the Sovereign and Almighty Lord over everything that has been made.

“And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the IMAGE of God. For we do not preach ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake. For God, who said, ‘Let light shine out of darkness,’ made His light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the KNOWLEDGE of the glory of God in the face of Christ.” (2 Corinthians 4:3-6)

“A man ought not to cover his head, since HE is the IMAGE and glory OF GOD; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man.” (1 Corinthians 11:7-8)

Remember, the man is the head of the family, the authority over the woman, as God intended it this way because it is a picture of our relationship in Christ and in God. The whole of the OT and NT have images of marriage and God is always revealed as the husband. Israel is the harlot or unfaithful wife. Likewise in the NT Christ is the Groom and the church is the faithful bride. There is a hierarchy there as man is the ruler, the woman the helpmate. The roles are for a purpose, God’s purpose. It points to Christ, as does the whole Bible.

Jesus was born of woman through the power of the Holy Spirit. It was not through man’s seed, but by God. The Father was God, the mother was Mary.

No GoldenEagles, you are incorporating a pagan or New Age belief into Scripture that is not revealed there. What is revealed is God’s purity, His righteousness, His holiness and that is the image and likeness that man had with his Maker before sin was found in him. He walked with God and got to know Him, as only one who is pure and holy can. That was Adam before the Fall. We come to know God through Christ, the eternal Son. We have received a new nature that is clothed in Christ who is the image of God.

Regarding the 300 instances
in which the term "mother" is
found in the Bible ...

Rcofield asks, “How many of those 300 times was "mother" used as a proper noun for God?”

I will stipulate to this fact, that out of the 300 times in which the term “mother” is used in the Bible, both Old and New Testament, that there is no instance in which the term is used in its noun form, where the literal interpretation can be taken as an (additional) definition for the Character of the Lord God., i.e. that God is Mother, as well as Father. But in making this stipulation, wherein I am being honest and straightforward, I am not thereby stipulating to the associated conclusion that God is not Mother, simply because the Bible does not have a clear and direct statement, in so many words, to that effect.

Now, Peterhuff, and Rcofield, please follow my lead, in terms of being honest and straightforward, and answer this question.

Isn’t it true, that the principle of motherhood must be contained within the heart and mind of the Lord God, as ideation, if the fact of motherhood is to be made manifest in form?

GOLDENEAGLES,

Peterhuff, perhaps this piece of information might help you to answer my last question. I did a search of the entire Bible, both Old and New Testaments, and found 300 occurrences of the word “mother”.

Psolus, I see "(fin)" written at the bottom of your post. Please explain to me how to properly interpret that.

GoldenEagles,

"Psolus, I see "(fin)" written at the bottom of your post."

Indeed you do.

"Please explain to me how to properly interpret that."

You are free to interpret it however you want.

Do you often ask someone else to explain to you how you are to properly interpret things that you see?

Peterhuff, perhaps this piece of information might help you to answer my last question. I did a search of the entire Bible, both Old and New Testaments, and found 300 occurrences of the word “mother”.

Psolus, I see "(fin)" written at the bottom of your post. Please explain to me how to properly interpret that.

GoldenEagles,

"Psolus should take heart in this respect."

Which respect?

"For the choice made to live in darkness can be reversed by the choice to step back into the Light."

Is that any easier then getting out of a two-year time-share?

(fin)

GOLDENEAGLES,

RE: Reason vs. Intellect

While not necessarily agreeing with every statement of your 4-part post on this matter, I certainly agree with your premise. Divine illumination of the mind/intellect is an indispensable necessity.

The Divinely inspired words of the apostle Paul in Romans 1:18-32 and 3:9-31 sum this up quite conclusively.

So....what is your second principle of scripture interpretation?

Peterhuff, my laborious exposition, with my luminous chalk, rather nearly luminous chalk, and so forth, the two circles, and a little bit of captioning, and a lot of posturing and pointing, was meant to make this point, that reason, in conjunction with our eyes, tells us that the principle of motherhood exists in the mind and the heart of God. Do you deny that, or admit that?

Reason vs. Intellect
The Mind of Christ - Part 1

Regarding the First Principle of Scriptural Interpretation, that of REASON, which I have set forth below, there is more to be said, before I move on to the Second Principle of Scriptural Interpretation, and onto the Third, and the Fourth, and the Fifth, and so forth, thereafter.

In regards to REASON, I believe that it is important, while we are on this subject, to make a distinction between the operation of the illuminated intellect and that of the unilluminated intellect, the former being capable of exhibiting the framework of intelligence that we call “reason”, and the latter NOT being able to exhibit that framework of intelligence that we call “reason.”

This would be very much like the distinction that can be made between an incandescent bulb that has its filament intact, has power flowing through it, which as a consequence can be said to be LIT, having continuos waves of photonic energy flooding forth therefrom, as compared to the incandescent bulb for which the power has either been turned off, or the filament burned out, or where there has been a crack in the bulb, which has allowed in pollutants which causes in turn the filament to burn out. That incandescent lamp is dark. There is no light there.

I would like to set forth this principle as axiomatic, that REASON is what happens in an illuminated intellect. And that the unilluminated intellect is not capable of exhibiting the quality of reason. This declaration of truth extends out along the path of immutable logic, even along that path of light streaming forth from the open door, even from the very gate of our castle, which is the First Law of Reason, the foundation of which, and the walls of which are built out of the brick, mortar, and rock of Obedience to the Laws of God.

Yes, that mind which refuses to either first recognize, and second obey the Laws of God, is in a state of rebellion against the First Law of Reason, and is therefore, and by definition, incapable of exhibiting the quality of reason.

The act of rebellion against God in Person, and His Laws, is what causes a crack in the bulb, which allows pollutants to pour in, which causes the filament to burn out.

The quality of illumination that follows from the posture of obedience to the Laws of God, is derived from the Light of God. The Power of God which flows through the filament, which causes the filament to throw off Light, that Light, is the Light of God. In this respect, as levels of light build up in the mind, layer upon layer, in an orderly manner, obeying the laws of truth and harmony along every line of expansion, this describes the superstructure of illuminated intelligence which is built upon the foundation of Obedience to the Laws of God.

And this is what St. Paul was referring to when he said, “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:”

(more)

Reason vs. Intellect
The Mind of Christ - Part 2

The unilluminated intellect, when on the dance floor, can make some fairly interesting moves that is for sure. And many there are who applaud, in a mindless manner. Bristol Palin comes to mind. But these moves (of the computer mind) stand in sharp contrast to the moves of reason, even as the moves of those “dancing” to heavy metal rock, will stand in sharp contrast to the moves of those who know how to waltz and fly in formation at the same time.

Although, everything is a continuum in this respect. We all move from disobedience to obedience, and thus, from darkness to light. At one end of the spectrum you have the militant Atheist who represents a walking black hole. On the other end of the spectrum you have the Master Jesus Christ, a veritable sun center, unto whom all power has been given. All of humanity is positioned somewhere on this continuum. Though generally at the lower end. A saint on earth, would be right in the middle, halfway home on his journey into the Light.

Anchoring the fullness of the Mind of Christ, the goal set before us by St. Paul, would represent that superstructure of Divine Intelligence (Pure Reason) wherein the soul dwells, like unto a vast Holy City, who has actually and finally and FULLY understood what it means to be obedient to the Laws of God.

For us, evolving on this planet, the Master Jesus Christ is our reference point for this point of complete understanding, and he is like a public library in this regard, that we are all invited to visit. (The Bible is sort of a like a brochure that tells us a little bit about the vast holdings of this vast knowledge base of Divine Wisdom which the heart of the Master represents.)

And as we all move from darkness to light, from unreason to reason, we are all engaged in this process by which we identify within ourselves, that which remains either ignorant of the Laws of God, which keeps us from fully satisfying all the requirements inherent in the First Law of Reason (which is obedience), or disobedient to the Laws of God, which again keeps us from fully satisfying all the requirements inherent in the First Law of Reason (which is obedience).

Foundation integrity is imperative. In any earthly structure, you have the same considerations here, in terms of the importance of the integrity of the foundation. The height to which you can build, is always predicated on the integrity of the foundation. If there are defects in the foundation, these are always looked at first, and remedied, before any further building can commence.

In the domain of spiritual foundations, holes, gaps, cracks, missing rebar, and so forth all fall within the category of either ignorance, or disobedience, to the Laws of God.

Obedience to the Laws of God must be total, and complete, and solid as a rock, before any substantial superstructure can be raised thereon.

(more)

Reason vs. Intellect
The Mind of Christ - Part 3

And this is where the statement comes from, that tells us, that in the breaking of the Laws of God, that ignorance is no excuse. That which is ignorant of the Laws of God, cannot move into a state of obedience to those laws. Indeed, to the degree wherein there is ignorance of the laws in the mind of man, to that degree does he remain outside of the domain where reason can be born within him and operate within him to any substantial degree.

Again, we reason from this foundation, that the First Law of Reason, is Obedience to the Laws of God. Reason, as the divine superstructure of divine intelligence, is built on this foundation. Where there is disobedience to those laws, whether it be ignorant, or willful, you have a gap in the foundation. The gap must be repaired.

And so, one of the great goals of reason, as it grows in its brilliance within us, is in identifying and recognizing where we harbor dark compartments of ignorance of God’s Laws, as well as dark compartments of conscious rebellion against those laws. As these are identified and cast out, by the Light of Reason, in this manner does God pour more Power through the filament, allowing the level of Light to increase within the mind.

Now, this helps us to more fully understand just how valuable this faculty of reason is, to the LORD, in terms of its power to support the redemptive process. Consider the words of the Prophet Isaiah one more time:

Isaiah 1:18 - Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

Here we see articulated a process whereby the soul is moving from a lower condition to a higher condition, through the exercise of this faculty of REASON.

(more)

Reason vs. Intellect
The Mind of Christ - Part 4

The process by which we reason together, brother to brother, even when it comes to the meaning of scripture, is this process where by, through the Light of Reason, these pockets of ignorance (which hold us back) can be identified, and thereupon cast out.

Though only if pride does not have too firm a grip on that box of dark chocolate.

Indeed, this possibility is always before us, that we can fashion in words, a particular matrix of reason, which can be used by God our Father, through the Person of Christ himself, who always dwells in the heart of our brother, as a veritable filament, through which HE will send HIS Light, like a broken street lamp flickering on for a moment, to signal to his Child, that the Child is in the presence of a point of truth, which would make a worthy addition to the content of the existing treasure chest.

And so, one piece of fool’s gold, is exchanged for one piece of Real Gold. And in that way, do each of us arrive in a state of perfection in this regard, as we learn DO the Will of God, in every respect that the Law of our Divine Being requires:

Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

The Light of Reason sweeps all confusion aside, and exposes this truth, making it crystal clear, like unto the beauty of the waters we sea in untrammeled south sea lagoons, that the subject of REASON and the subject of SPIRITUAL FOUNDATIONS, are inextricably linked together.

Psolus should take heart in this respect. For the choice made to live in darkness can be reversed by the choice to step back into the Light.

(end)

Hi GoldenEagle,

Holy crow, with your luminous chalk that is quite a glowing explanation Professor, but you lost me at 'the edge of the circle.' (^8

To create a race of people, which we will call mankind in general, and to endow that race with the attributes of motherhood, and with the attributes of respect and honor and love for motherhood, is it not neccessary that these principles related to motherhood, must first have their existance and reality within God in an a priori manner?

Yes, I agree that God is necessary for anything, but on your principle of Father/Mother then God is also tree and baby and animal, because these things are also mentioned. Yet we see God as distinct from His creation.

Secondly, names reveal character, and God has chosen to reveal Himself as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Nowhere does He reveal Himself as mother that I am aware of in Scripture, although He does use metaphors such as of the mother hen and her chicks to illustrate a point.

So, if you want to use 'reason' then by reason God has chosen for us to know Him in the masculine gender, and by reason His word is true and our final authority, since there is no higher authority in which to appeal to.

Third, you are reading this interpretation of God into the Scriptures, you are not taking it our of what God has revealed here.

Jesus does not say, "I and the Father/Mother are one." Nowhere do you see this kind of distinction in Scripture.

Where in Scripture can you show me this reference to father/mother?

God is a trinity of persons - eternally existing as Father, Son and Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit is also referred to as 'He.'

Where do you see the pronoun 'she' used of God?

Fourth, God has revealed He is not man but Spirit.

"He who is the glory of Israel does not lie or change His mind; for He is not a man, that He should change His mind." (1 Samual 15:29)

Sorry this is rushed. When I get some free time, I want to discuss more about image and likeness.

GoldenEagles,

"I am gratified that you found at least one point of interest in my laborious exposition."

You're welcome; personally, I'm surprised.

"As you might be aware, being an electric fan of science as you are, even though unplugged most of the time, that larger things can grow from tiny seeds."

I'm an unplugged electric fan of science?

Are you sure?

I'm feeling a bit more like a plugged-in space heater today.

GOLDENEAGLES,

RE: G.E. First Principle of Scriptural Interpretation--Reason.

In applying this First Principle of Scriptural Interpretation, we must approach every passage in scripture with our reasoning machinery turned on.--G.E.

I think the literal/grammatical/historical/canonical-contextual method presupposes the use of reason.

Keeping in mind that the context of my question was "how do we determine the original intent" of any given passage of scripture, what would be your next principle of scripture interpretation?

GoldenEagles First Principle
of Scriptural Interpretation - Reason

RCofield says, “I would really like to engage you here, but I need to know your basis for scripture interpretation.”

I would base the first principle of scriptural interpretation on the Word of God as given to us by the Prophet Isaiah:

Isaiah 1:18 - Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

Here we see that reason is very important to God. From God’s Word, we see that reason appears to be an important part of the redemptive process.

Therefore, I take this to mean that everything that God our Father gives to us is designed to invoke, exercise, and enhance our capacity to reason. I believe the capacity to reason is a gift from God, and that if we do not exercise it, it becomes weak and flabby, like any muscle, and we will eventually lose the capacity altogether for the lack of exercise. In this regard, the old adage applies, practice makes perfect. Reason itself tells us therefore, that it is the desire of God our Father for us to perfect our reasoning faculties. Therefore, it would make sense that he would give us, within the whole body of scripture itself, abundant opportunities in the pursuit of truth to exercise this faculty of reason.

In pursuit of the application of this principle, we are faced with the task of plumbing the depths of reason itself, and even the responsibility to delineate the laws thereof.

At the top of that list we would find the first law of reason standing before us as a glistenting mountain peak, with nothing upon the entire landscape challenging the dominant authority thereof.

Majestic, breathtaking, and awe-inspiring, is the first law of reason, being Obedience to the Laws of God --- obedience that is not demanded in a robotic manner, as the microprocessor is expected to faithfully execute each line of code, but obedience that sprouts out of reason itself, that is, out of the understanding of the Value of God’s Laws. And out of that appreciation, love, and respect --- the birth of which, only reason allows --- does the fact of obedience manifest as a natural attribute of the soul.

In applying this First Principle of Scriptural Interpretation, we must approach every passage in scripture with our reasoning machinery turned on.

GoldenEagles Principles
of Scriptural Interpretation

RCofield says, “I would really like to engage you here, but I need to know your basis for scripture interpretation.”

In response to your repeated, persistent, and determined requests, I have written out my principles of scriptural interpretation. I will post them one at a time. We can discuss the principles one by one.

The Wisdom of God pours from the heavens like unto delicious summer showers. Yet the people wear their ponchos, and carry their umbrellas, always at the ready are they, and under the awesome monsoon, if they should spring a leak, quickly do thick rubber patches find their mark, and as an extra precaution, from tall aerosol cans, water-proofing chemicals are sprayed on the tongue ensuring the Artistry of God’s Love will never tickle the taste buds of the soul.

Psolus asks, “Where can one purchase nearly luminous chalk?”

I am gratified that you found at least one point of interest in my laborious exposition. As you might be aware, being an electric fan of science as you are, even though unplugged most of the time, that larger things can grow from tiny seeds.

PEREGRINE,

Looks like we've about played our our string on this particular exchange.

Unless you have a new "starter" post to offer, I salute you and await our next encounter.

I'm going to lie down now. I'm dizzy from trying to imagine "nearly luminous" chaulk circles and I am stupefied by GOLDENEAGLES' professorial "mystifying glow."

GoldenEagles,

Where can one purchase nearly luminous chalk?

(fin)

RCofield,

"Awww….you don’t say!"

Awww, I do say.

"Perhaps if…..nah! I’ll let you take another swing at that one. Wouldn’t want to be “impolite.”"

Good one; you have every reason to feel proud, no matter what you god tells you.

"I’d stay away from the toasters and ovens"

Why?

The Presentation of a Reasonable
Question Regarding the Fatherhood
Motherhood principle in God - Part 1

To create a race of people, which we will call mankind in general, and to endow that race with the attributes of motherhood, and with the attributes of respect and honor and love for motherhood, is it not neccessary that these principles related to motherhood, must first have their existance and reality within God in an a priori manner?

In other words, within the Creative Mind of God, do not these principles of motherhood, have to exist first, as IDEATION, before they can be expressed in FORM?

To illustrate this point further, please imagine that I am a college professor standing before a class of students. I have a black board at my disposal, and I have a piece of bright white chalk in my right hand. It is nearly luminous.

After erasing the blackboard, so that there is nothing else on it, the class watches as I draw two circles.

I draw the first circle, about 12 inches in diameter, centered horizontally on the blackboard, but just ten inches below its top edge. This first circle will appear centered, and near the top of the black board, but separated from the top edge by a comfortable distance.

I draw the second circle, somewhat smaller, about 10 inches in diameter, below the first circle, but separated by about 8 inches. That is to say, after I draw the lower circle, you will see that the distance between the bottom edge of the top circle, and the top edge of the lower circle, is about 8 inches.

Using my luminous chalk, I will label the top circle “GOD”. I will use capital letters. I will write the word “GOD” just above the top edge of the top circle. And just so there is no confusion, I will draw a line, with an arrowhead at the end, from the word “GOD” that points to the perimeter of the top circle. I will do this, because I want the class to understand that this top circle represents “GOD”.

Again, using my luminous chalk, I will label the bottom circle “MANKIND”. Again, I will use capital letters. I will use capital letters to denote that “MANKIND” is a creation of “GOD”. I will write the word “MANKIND” just below the bottom edge of the bottom circle. And just so there is no confusion, I will draw a line, with an arrowhead at the end, from the word “MANKIND” that points to the perimeter of the bottom circle. I will do this, because I want the class to understand that this bottom circle represents “MANKIND”.

Again, using my luminous chalk, I will draw a line, with an arrowhead on the end, from the bottom edge of the top circle, leaving about a half inch of space for aesthetic purposes, to the top edge of the bottom circle, but again, leaving about a half inch of space for aesthetic purposes. I will draw this line to make it clear, that GOD is the Creator of MANKIND. That the Creation of Mankind, flows out of God.

(more)

The Presentation of a Reasonable
Question Regarding the Fatherhood
Motherhood principle in God - Part 2

Again, using my luminous chalk, I will write in these words, 'FATHERHOOD - MOTHERHOOD' at the center of the lower circle, which is labeled 'MANKIND'. Again, I will use capital letters. I will use capital letters to denote that 'FATHERHOOD - MOTHERHOOD' is the creation of 'GOD'.

At this point, I am finished writing on the blackboard, and I put my piece of luminous chalk in the tray that runs along the bottom edge of the blackboard. I place the eraser on top of it, so the class is not distracted by its mystifying glow.

But in the blackboard tray, I have a standard issue pointer. It is made out of some kind of very hard white plastic. It is about three feet long, and comes to a nice tapered point at the end, and it allows me to stand aside of my diagram at a comfortable distance while I am pointing and referring to the various parts thereof.

At this point, I am going to pick up my pointer, and move off to the side a little bit, and face the class, and ask the following question.

"Does not this principle," directing my pointer at the center of the lower circle, and directly at the words ‘FATHERHOOD - MOTHERHOOD’, "have to exist here first," directing my pointer at the center of the upper circle, "before it can be given form here?" again directing my pointer at the center of the lower circle.

Let this be a little movie that runs in your mind.

And here, putting down my pointer, and picking up my piece of luminous chalk again, I press the class further, by asking, "Is it not appropriate, then, to write these same words up here," as I write ‘FATHERHOOD - MOTHERHOOD’ in the upper circle, which has been blank up this point, "as I have written down here?" pointing to the lower circle with my free hand.

At this point, the class sees that the words ‘FATHERHOOD - MOTHERHOOD’ are written into the center of both the upper and the lower circles.

For the moment, I am finished writing, and I place my piece of luminous chalk back in the blackboard tray, and again cover it up with the eraser, so as not to distract the class with its mystifying glow.

Picking up my three foot pointer from the tray, whose faithful assistance I require in making my final point, and moving aside from the diagram once again, I press the class with one further question. "Indeed," say I, "Is not God," pointing at the top circle, "acting in the role of Mother," pointing at the term ‘MOTHERHOOD’ in the upper circle, "when God gives birth," pointing at the connecting line, "to mankind?" pointing to the lower circle.

(end)

PEREGRINE,

Actually, I was just mocking you….

It would, but only if you were able to understood it.

I'm here because for every 10 believers that I turn to the dark side, I get a free home appliance of my choice.

GOLDENEAGLES,

RCofield says, "Now everyone knows I am a closet jihadist."
At one point you imply that someone should hand me my head on a platter. And now, you are expressing the subsconscious desire to knock down my towers.

Actually I said Cornbread could hand you your head, and there was no reference to a platter...or knocking anything down...or towers...

What are we to think?

And still no answer to a question that I have posed to you four times.

Shall I now presume you are afraid to answer the question?

RCofield,

"You seem to be melting again."

Actually, I was just mocking you by alluding to the scene in "The Wizard of Oz" in which... oh, never mind.

"That would explain a great deal."

It would, but only if you were able to understood it.

"Thou doest."

Uh, sure...

"We’ll never know if it is left to you to rebut it, will we?"

Well, you'll never know.

"Thaaaats why I’m here."

I'm here because for every 10 believers that I turn to the dark side, I get a free home appliance of my choice.

"I’m fixated on “that?”"

You're not really all that shocked, are you?

RCofield says, "Now everyone knows I am a closet jihadist."

At one point you imply that someone should hand me my head on a platter. And now, you are expressing the subsconscious desire to knock down my towers. What are we to think?

GOLDENEAGLES,

Your post is time stamped 9:11. Is there any significance to that? Was that intentional, or serendipitous? How are we to interpret that? I seem to remember another arabic inference in another previous post of yours.

Any answer forthcoming to my question?

WALTER,

i just wanted to clear up one thing, in response to my saying i wouldn't let my wife shovel snow from the driveway…..

uh...no... in your attempt to score a "gotcha" (which seems to be the entirety of your "schtick") or be unpleasant or something, you totally missed my point....again...

i wouldn't let ANYONE harvest my snow, 'cept me - and sex has nothing to do with it. indeed, i AM much better at it than she is - it's not because of her "different" "design", but because i've learned all sorts of shovel-handling and snow-throwing techniques, and i know exactly where i want to put the snow. see? that's all.

it's NOT: those judges are elected or appointed by people who are elected. further, women AND men can be judges - at least in modern, enlightened societies. so, there's no equivalence to the male-only authorities imagined by the biblical authors.

PEREGRINE,

You seem to be melting again.

I think they were coyotes.

Do I object?

You've apparently put a bit of thought into that; not nearly enough, but a bit none-the-less.

And you are one of several who feels compelled to respond.

Curious that you fixated on that, isn't it?

rco,
as for your attempt to equate my being under the "authority" of judges...to women being under the authority of men. do you really think that's a good analogy?

it's NOT: those judges are elected or appointed by people who are elected. further, women AND men can be judges - at least in modern, enlightened societies. so, there's no equivalence to the male-only authorities imagined by the biblical authors.

Rcofield says, “Still one question left unanswered: Would you agree that the best way to establish the original intent of the Scripture is to apply theliteral/grammatical/historical/canonical-contextual method of interpretation?”

Your post is time stamped 9:11. Is there any significance to that? Was that intentional, or serendipitous? How are we to interpret that? I seem to remember another arabic inference in another previous post of yours.

rco,
i just wanted to clear up one thing, in response to my saying i wouldn't let my wife shovel snow from the driveway, you said,

"LOL. And you unwittingly dig your hole of contradiction yet deeper. Do you even realize what you are doing? Is you wife not capable of “harvesting” snow in such a way that it remains “clean?” Or are you just “better” at it than she is......? Nah, that couldn't be it. That would be sexist..... :-)"

uh...no... in your attempt to score a
"gotcha" (which seems to be the entirety of your "schtick") or be unpleasant or something, you totally missed my point....again...

i wouldn't let ANYONE harvest my snow, 'cept me - and sex has nothing to do with it. indeed, i AM much better at it than she is - it's not because of her "different" "design", but because i've learned all sorts of shovel-handling and snow-throwing techniques, and i know exactly where i want to put the snow. see? that's all.

RCofield,

"Indeed, but appropriately descriptive in this case."

My, my.

"She did. But then my father taught me to call a spade a spade. I'm conflicted."

Yes, your are that.

"Just clarifying."

Good for you.

"One can only assume it is a foreign concept to you given your protests."

Yes, some people can only assume.

"And you think that is self-righteous indignation?"

Yes I do.

"Were you raised by poodles?"

I think they were coyotes.

"Oh, I dunno. Let's see here:"

[various observations and questions omitted]

"Yeah. I think there is more than a little self-righteous indignation in those statements."

How much more than a little?

"Given the sordid details of your postings about your view of women, it also qualifies as hypocritical self-righteous indignation."

My, my.

"Then why do you object when I point out the inconsistencies?"

Do I object?

"Well, “PSOLUS” is appended to the end of each of your posts."

So, that's how you figured it out; your powers of observation and deduction are truly superhuman.

"Oh, but your Socratic Method of questioning is a form of lecturing;..."

Really, now?

"...it is just overtly framed in such a way that you avoid actually having to engage in point/counterpoint debate."

So, I'm a clever lad as well as an enigma.

"That's rather sophomoric."

So, I'm a sophomoric clever lad as well as an enigma.

"Actually you have stated (repeatedly) that you believe nothing ."

Once again, your powers of observation and deduction are truly superhuman.

"Said statement is a philosophical impossibility that is clearly contradicted by your own posts, hence it is a statement of false belief that negates itself."

You've apparently put a bit of thought into that; not nearly enough, but a bit none-the-less.

"Think about it."

OK... hmmmm....

"Yet you are the one who feels compelled to post daily on a religious blog that you believe nothing."

And you are one of several who feels compelled to respond.

"I rest my case."

Case dismissed, with prejudice.

"Let's see.... The eye is a gateway into the mind..."

Did someone tell you that?

"...and you can't see because your hands are over your eyes..."

Did someone tell you that, also?

"...yet your hands are in your pants... Hmmm."

Did someone tell you that; oh, right, I told you that?

Curious that you fixated on that, isn't it?

"It seems you may be thinking with your male member, Peregrine."

Why are you thinking and writing about my "male member"?

"When you think about it, that really isn't a shocking revelation at all, is it?"

I'm a little shocked that you would be thinking and writing about my "male member".

GOLDENEAGLES,

Still one question left unanswered:

Would you agree that the best way to establish the original intent of the Scripture is to apply the literal/grammatical/historical/canonical-contextual method of interpretation?--RCofield

Also, are you familiar with the writings of Eckhart Tolle?

PEREGRINE,

Part 1 of 2

Sordid is such an ugly word.

Didn't your mother teach you that it is impolite to point out "other men's sons'" hypocrisy?

Didn't your mother teach you that it is impolite to point out "other men's sons'" typos?

It's you implying that "meaning what one says" is a "foreign concept to me" simply because what I say generally does not correspond with your beliefs. Think about it.

Do you really believe that?

That is certainly some old-timey religious beliefs that you believe regarding women.--Peregrine

I find it amazing that an adult in this country, and in this century, would hold on to such archaic beliefs.--Peregrine

Were you by chance home-schooled?--Peregrine

Also, do you believe that a menstruating woman is unclean, or evil, or possessed, or just being punished, by your god, for eve's sin?--Peregrine

I can understand you thinking that I am magnanimous because I treat "other men's daughters" as equals, instead of as domestic slaves, specially "designed" by an imaginary magical entity to cook, clean, and squirt out babies for the benefit of the "superiorly designed" men.--Peregrine

PEREGRINE,

Part 2 of 2

No, such are the benefits.

Are you sure that it's me that you hear?

No I'm not; that's why I don't attempt to lecture other people about it.

No, you see above.

No, I correctly recognize that I lack belief.

I'm quite content with my lack of belief; you are the one who appears to be threatened by it.

Well hell, who among us can honestly say that their Socratic self-deprecation doesn't lack some consistency, am I right people?

Are you sure? Most of this time I've had my hands in my pants.

Let us not wed ourselves to error, unnecessarily ...

You seem to be saying (peterhuff) that what is male and female cannot know holiness.

However, many people in the history of the church, even from the days of Jesus Christ, achieved the state of holiness by being saturated by the Holy Spirit.

We have scriptural references to the Holy Spirit saturating both male and female people.

We can conclude from the fact that the Holy Spirit can fully saturate and uplift both male and female people, that the Holy Spirit is in perfect harmony with both the male and female attributes.

In other words, within the Holy Spirit is the intelligence necessary to fully immerse the male person, or the female person in this perfect and divine energy forcefield that we call holiness.

In other words, within the Holy Spirit is the knowledge of what is required to interface with, and uplift, both the male person, and the female person in this perfect and divine energy forcefield that we call holiness.

In other words, when confronting the prospect of interfacing with, and uplifting a particular male individual, while in prayer for example, the Holy Spirit can grasp the entire structure of the male identity, quantifying and identifying every single bit of atomic matter associated with that male identity, and with utter perfection, lock into every bit of it, and raise it all, in an act of perfect artistry, into this perfect and divine energy forcefield that we call holiness.

And in like manner, when confronting the prospect of interfacing with, and uplifting a particular female individual, while in prayer for example, the Holy Spirit can grasp the entire structure of the female identity, quantifying and identifying every single bit of atomic matter associated with that female identity, and with utter perfection, lock into every bit of it, and raise it all, in an act of perfect artistry, into this perfect and divine energy forcefield that we call holiness.

And at the point of upliftment the Holy Spirit necessarily has to be one with the male person in the first instance, or the female person in the second.

And so, your separation of these two expressions of the divine identity, that of the capacity to exhibit holiness, and that of the capacity to play the roles of male, or female, into categories that you contend are dissimilar, one being in the likeness of God, and other not being in the likeness of God, is not a requirement of the laws of reason, which is to say, that the laws of reason do not require this differentiation, as it is an incorrect differentiation, being rather, a temporary device only to prove a point to which you appear to emotionally wed.

Says Peterhuff, "We know God can be Father, but I Know God cannot also be Mother, and therefore, thus and thus... "

Even though it is written, that all things are possible unto God.

Hi GoldenEagles,

Cutting to the chase, I believe that God's word is our ultimate authority and nowhere is it explicitly stated that God is mother, therefore you are imposing into Scripture something that it does not outwardly state, and I contend that you are confusing categories since God is Spirit and He made man and woman physical as well as spiritual.

He is never called mother by anyone in Scripture.

Throughout the Scriptures God is revealed in the masculine gender for a purpose. This is the way that God wants us to think about Him.

What is the 'image and likeness' of God? I have contended that it is not what you suggest it to be, for God is Spirit.

So I contend since He is not like man in this respect that conforming to His image must be to His attributes and nature.

If you were to conform to God's image then you would have to be holy, pure and righteous. To be in relationship with God and walk with Him, and have His Spirit dwell in you, then Christ in us is the only way. It is what we are called to throughout the NT. His people are called holy.

The fruit of His Spirit is the image of God; love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness and self-control or temperance.

"You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness. I put this in human terms because you are weak in your natural selves. Just as you used to offer the parts of your bodies in slavery to impurity and to ever increasing wickedness, so now offer them in slavery to righteousness leading to holiness." (Romans 6:18-19)

"But just as He who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do; for it is written: 'Be holy, because I am holy.'" (1 Peter 1:15)

The verses are numerous that could be used to make this point.

RCofield,

"I didn’t. You’ve been quite forthcoming about giving us the sordid details of your lifestyle."

Sordid is such an ugly word.

"It’s neither here nor there to me. It was your disdain for my views on the intrinsic value of women that initiated this particular exchange. I’m just pointing out your hypocrisy."

Didn't your mother teach you that it is impolite to point out "other men's sons'" hypocrisy?

"You mean isn’t it though? Indeed it is."

Didn't your mother teach you that it is impolite to point out "other men's sons'" typos?

"How is my meaning what I say “self-righteous indignation?”"

It's you implying that "meaning what one says" is a "foreign concept to me" simply because what I say generally does not correspond with your beliefs.

Think about it.

"You lost track there."

No I didn't.

"Kinda like you’ve lost track of the fact that it was your “self-righteous indignation” that initiated this exchange."

Do you really believe that?

"Such are the hazards of claiming enigmatic exclusivity."

No, such are the benefits.

"I hear you loud and clear."

Are you sure that it's me that you hear?

"Nope. Are you?"

No I'm not; that's why I don't attempt to lecture other people about it.

"See above."

No, you see above.

"You erroneously believe that you lack belief;..."

No, I correctly recognize that I lack belief.

"...something you are obviously having difficulty coming to terms with."

I'm quite content with my lack of belief; you are the one who appears to be threatened by it.

"Your Socratic self-deprication lacks consistency."

Well hell, who among us can honestly say that their Socratic self-deprecation doesn't lack some consistency, am I right people?

"Perhaps that has something to do with you having your hands over your eyes."

Are you sure?

Most of this time I've had my hands in my pants.

PEREGRINE,

Then why bring it up?

Oh, I see; it's eating away at you.

Isn't it thought?

No, I've experienced other people's self-righteous indignation before.

To you, I'm sure that I do.

Again, you cannot hear me.

So, suddenly you're in charge of reality?

So, you are suddenly in charge of reality?

It's not a belief, it's a lack of belief; something that believers seem to have difficulty coming to terms with.

Apparently not; you are aware that I can't see you, right?

RCofield,

"Not at all. I am perfectly comfortable with responding to what you present on these threads as being your lifestyle."

Then why bring it up?

"If you want to change your story I’m sure I can still engage you."

Oh, I see; it's eating away at you.

"How do you know that?"

Experience.

"This too is self-evident."

Isn't it thought?

"So it is a foreign concept to you."

No, I've experienced other people's self-righteous indignation before.

"Yes, you do at times seem baffled, befuddled, and bewildered."

To you, I'm sure that I do.

"You sound bewildered."

Again, you cannot hear me.

"Are you aware that the proverbial monkey with his hands over his eyes is not only unable to see evil; he can’t see anything else either?"

I wasn't aware that there is a "proverbial monkey".

"One who does not believe the veracity of self-evident things has lost touch with reality."

So, suddenly you're in charge of reality?

"Didn’t you say you believe nothing?"

Several times.

"Reality and truth are uninfluenced by one’s belief or unbelief, be it mine or yours."

So, you are suddenly in charge of reality?

"Your belief that you believe nothing will not cause reality and truth to re-calibrate to accommodate your lack of belief."

It's not a belief, it's a lack of belief; something that believers seem to have difficulty coming to terms with.

"You didn’t notice my tongue in my cheek?"

Apparently not; you are aware that I can't see you, right?

PEREGRINE,

Is it eating at you that you will never know?

Yes.

It's not virtue that interests me.

Hah!

Once again: I am an enigma, wrapped in an enigma, inside an enigma.

I don't see anything. I still don't see anything.

Do you really believe that?

So, something is real and true only if you believe it is, but unreal and untrue if you do not believe it is?

You almost have to believe that now, don't you?

RCofield,

"I can only go by what you have posted. Unless you are living vicariously through your posts, that is more than adequate to support my conclusions."

Is it eating at you that you will never know?

"Do you think?"

Yes.

"I can only go by what you post. Unless you are living vicariously…..well, never mind."

Eating away...

"Well crafted, but hardly more virtuous."

It's not virtue that interests me.

"No, I actually meant what I said. That may be a foreign concept to you."

Hah!

"“Lucky” is a superstitious concept that is unrelated to reality (I thought you had wisely rejected all “superstitions?!”), but if I did have a concept of luck that most assuredly would not be it."

Once again: I am an enigma, wrapped in an enigma, inside an enigma.

"Oh, I’ve “got it” already. Watch:"

I don't see anything.

"No, it wasn’t. See?"

I still don't see anything.

"Only you can answer that one."

Well, good for me.

"Nope, no “other words” necessary. That is the nature of self-evident things."

Do you really believe that?

"Only for those who do not believe the truth, but then they were never really believers in the first place."

So, something is real and true only if you believe it is, but unreal and untrue if you do not believe it is?

"Of course, for those who believe nothing, reality doesn’t even exist, does it?"

You almost have to believe that now, don't you?

PEREGRINE,

Whoops. Wrong again. Your ignorance of my actual "lifestyle" is a real handicap for you when you attempt to respond to my comments.

Actually, you are disappointed that I do not believe it.

How do you know, you can't hear me.

Actually, I submit myself to "other men's daughters" who are domineering and perversely masculine.

Don't you mean that many people choose to not believe what you believe?

That's not your concept of lucky?

Well, keep trying, I'm sure that you'll get it eventually.

See, that wasn't so hard, was it?

Then why all the confusion?

In other words, another belief.

Good.

Isn't reality pretty shaky ground for a believer?

Verily?

RCofield,

"Whoops. Wrong again. Your ignorance of what the bible actually says is a real handicap for you when you post on a “religion” blog."

You're right; I'm not doing any better than you are, am I?

"No, that is actually part and parcel of your chosen lifestyle, not the biblical worldview."

Whoops. Wrong again. Your ignorance of my actual "lifestyle" is a real handicap for you when you attempt to respond to my comments.

"Nor am I surprised that you do not recognize it."

Actually, you are disappointed that I do not believe it.

"You sound tired, Peregrine."

How do you know, you can't hear me.

"So we are agreed that you reduce women to a mere piece of flesh for you to ogle and to serve as a receptacle for your self-gratification."

Actually, I submit myself to "other men's daughters" who are domineering and perversely masculine.

"No, it is just the nature of your symbiotic relationships with women. Parasitic."

Again, you are free to believe that.

"Not necessarily, though I have noticed that many self-evident things seem to elude many on these threads."

Don't you mean that many people choose to not believe what you believe?

"That’s your concept of lucky?"

That's not your concept of lucky?

"Sometimes it is a little difficult to differentiate between how much you are missing because you are not paying attention and how much you are missing because of your lack of knowledge about the subjects being discussed.

Well, keep trying, I'm sure that you'll get it eventually.

"What is not difficult to discern is that you a missing a great deal."

See, that wasn't so hard, was it?

"No, I “got it” the first time around, certainly."

Then why all the confusion?

"Actually, that would fall under the “some things are self-evident” category."

In other words, another belief.

"I understand."

Good.

"In reality you said that."

Isn't reality pretty shaky ground for a believer?

"Watch yourself confirm that:"

I like to watch myself.

"Think about it, if you can."

I like to think about it, and I can.

"Oh, I shall."

Verily?

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
(I made this post to the comment section of Why are the Marines the military's biggest backers of 'don't ask, don't tell'? and I wanted to share it here.)
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

ON THE SUBJECT OF HOMOSEXUAL INSANITY

bobbarnes wrote: “Why are the Marines the military's biggest backers of 'don't ask, don't tell'? ... Easy, they are by far the most insecure about their masculinity.”

I am going to post on the subject of homosexual insanity, but I wanted to point out the fact that here we have a superb illustration of it in the comment of bobbarnes.

In the Marines, we have true warriors, those who are willing to confront the enemy, run into a hail storm of bullets, for the sake of our freedom, and you think this is a sign of insecurity regarding their masculinity? That is so far off the wall, that your brain has bounced into outer space itself. These men are at the very core of what it means to be masculine. And from that reference point, they understand that in homosexuals you have the very meltdown of all warrior virtues.

If a homosexual could be a warrior, they would begin by defeating the alien force that has invaded their very own temple, and robbed them of their very God-Given identity as males.

Marines know, at intuitive levels, that what they have in a homosexual, is a person that has totally submitted to the enemy, has totally surrendered to the enemy, and who now lives within the spirit of defeat, with the dark fluid of submission and cowardice coursing through the veins. A homosexual, when juxtaposed to the virtues that make a warrior, is exposed to be the most detestable and abominable creature on the face of the earth.

PEREGRINE,

All of that is part and parcel of the biblical command that "other men's daughters" are to submit to their husbands.

According to you and your god, whatever daddy wants, daddy gets.

I'm not surprised that you believe that.

I'm not surprised that you believe that, also.

Hey, what can I say - I'm an enigma.

Oh, I see; it's just another of your ignorant beliefs about me.

Don't all beliefs appear to be self-evident to the believer?

How lucky can I get, right?

Well, as a cafeteria catholic fundamentalist, you would know.

Keep trying; you'll get it eventually, maybe.

Did the catholics teach you that?

I prefer not to.

No, you just irresponsibly inferred that.

Hey, what can I tell you; I'm an enigma.

Aw, go on.

Apaganplace says, “It absolutely is a disgrace that the Religious Right wants to impose on the military their sense of regressive theological division against LGBT Americans.”

No, Apaganplace, your stubborn Rebellion against God, and that of your fellow travelers, that is the true disgrace. And a sorry sight, which was best left in the closet.

The Homosexual City

Where the Very Instrument of
Our National Defense Becomes
an Instrument for the Repudiation
of Biblical Principle,

Where the Very Machinery of
our National Defense Becomes
the Proving Ground for the Idea
that the Foolishness of Man will
Provide a Shield More Sturdy
than the Providence of God,

In that day, look for the
Breaching of the castle walls,
and the overrunning of the city,

For Surely, God is not Mocked.

For when the Shield of God is
Removed, there is no Shield at All.

Translation: Removing the ban on
homosexuality in the military is an
example of latter day insanity, a
veritable act of national suicide.

RCofield,

"My, my, Peregrine. Did you not notice that there was not a single mention of women being “domestic slaves, specially designed by an imaginary magical entity to cook, clean, and squirt out babies for the benefit of the superiorly designed men” even in your highly selective use of my quotations?"

All of that is part and parcel of the biblical command that "other men's daughters" are to submit to their husbands.

According to you and your god, whatever daddy wants, daddy gets.

"I was aware of that well in advance of your acknowledging it."

Well, good for you.

"Virtually all men who have been emasculated by the feminist movement do."

I'm not surprised that you believe that.

"So your experience with women apparently is limited to symbiotic parasitism. Such is the life of Peregrine the Bachelor."

I'm not surprised that you believe that, also.

"If find it fascinating that you would take me to task on my view of the virtue of womanhood when you admittedly reduce them to a mere piece of flesh for you to ogle and to serve as a receptacle for your self-gratification."

Hey, what can I say - I'm an enigma.

"Parasitism is a type of symbiotic relationship between organisms where one organism, the parasite, benefits at the expense of the host. Surely you can work it out from there."

Oh, I see; it's just another of your ignorant beliefs about me.

"Some things are just plainly self-evident."

Don't all beliefs appear to be self-evident to the believer?

"Only to be enslaved by a life of mindless, parasitic self-gratification at the expense of the fairer sex."

How lucky can I get, right?

"It is part and parcel of the universal Catholic dogma."

Well, as a cafeteria catholic fundamentalist, you would know.

"Ok.....you were taught that falsehood in Catholic school...but only “discovered” said falsehood later in life...”on your own.” Perhaps you were not paying attention."

Keep trying; you'll get it eventually, maybe.

"Yes, but for everyone it is a part of communication, your apparent self-claimed exclusion notwithstanding."

Did the catholics teach you that?

"Gee, Peregrine. Since you have such a firm grasp of when it is responsible to infer and when it is responsible not to infer, maybe you could tutor me?"

I prefer not to.

"Ummm...are you bi-polar?"

Ummm... no.

"I thought you wanted me to infer responsibly."

No, you just irresponsibly inferred that.

"And btw: Your indignation in your next-to-last statement controverts the indifference expressed in your last statement."

Hey, what can I tell you; I'm an enigma.

"That is, of course, if anything can be inferred from your erudite statements by us poor “ignorant” folk."

Aw, go on.

PEREGRINE,

Part 1 of 2

No, I think that my understanding of your views about "other men's daughters" is dead-on: [long list of quotations intentionally lifted from the context of Rcofield's erudite arguments and given non-contextual subheadings by one Peregrine Solus bowdlerized]

I do, by the way (find domineering women attractive).

You are in agreement with what you choose to believe; such is the life of a believer.

Also, where did the parasitism come from?

Or is it just one more thing that you have chosen to believe?

PEREGRINE,

Part 2 of 2

That is where my self-professed ignorance of your magical book of magical sayings saves me from a life of mindless belief in ignorance and superstition.

Really? Have you been in every catholic school in the world to witness that, or is that simply one more ignorant thing that you have chosen to believe?

Well, that doesn't make any sense at all; think about it, if you can.

But, for many people, it is not the only part of communication.

Perhaps you should use some of that responsibility that your imaginary god designed in you at the expense of "other men's daughters" to learn when to infer, and when not to infer.

And, as I told you several times before, you are free to infer to your heart's content; I really don't care what you infer from what I write.

RCofield,

"If you will look again at the whole of what I wrote you will find that you are drawing inferentially flawed conclusions from what I wrote, not to mention dead-wrong conclusions."

No, I think that my understanding of your views about "other men's daughters" is dead-on:

Submission - "Man must submit to the authority of Christ [sic], and women [must submit] to the authority of husbands..."

Irresponsibility, Poor Design - "You ask why a woman would not be given the responsibility of pastoring a congregation. The answer is the same as above. Pastoring people is a difficult responsibility. ... Simply put, men are better designed for the rigors and responsibilities of pastoral ministry..."

More Poor Design - "The fact that men are required by scripture to protect women from some of the more harsh responsibilities of life that they are not designed to deal with..."

Perverted - "And said women are not genuinely feminine, for they have taken on a perverted form of masculinity that manifests itself in terms of them becoming domineering."

Domineering and More Poor Design - "I bet you don't find a domineering woman attractive at all, do you? [I do, by the way] (I hope I'm right on that one [well, you're wrong]) Why? Because they are trying to be something that God [sic] did not design them to be."

"So we are in agreement that your experience with women is limited to mere symbiotic parasitism."

You are in agreement with what you choose to believe; such is the life of a believer.

Also, where did the parasitism come from?

Or is it just one more thing that you have chosen to believe?

"Given that the vast majority of Catholic dogma is completely antithetical to biblical christianity, this is where your self-professed ignorance of the bible becomes glaringly obvious."

That is where my self-professed ignorance of your magical book of magical sayings saves me from a life of mindless belief in ignorance and superstition.

"Yet the very statement you made is taught in every Catholic school in the world."

Really?

Have you been in every catholic school in the world to witness that, or is that simply one more ignorant thing that you have chosen to believe?

"Hmmmm..... Perhaps is was you who wasn't paying attention."

Well, that doesn't make any sense at all; think about it, if you can.

"Inference is a substantive part of communication."

But, for many people, it is not the only part of communication.

"Perhaps you should not make purposely inferential statements if you do not want inferences to be drawn."

Perhaps you should use some of that responsibility that your imaginary god designed in you at the expense of "other men's daughters" to learn when to infer, and when not to infer.

And, as I told you several times before, you are free to infer to your heart's content; I really don't care what you infer from what I write.

GOLDENEAGLES,

Are you familiar with the writings of Eckhart Tolle?

PEREGRINE,

That is what you told walter-in-fallschurch that you interpreted that your god told you to believe in your magical book of magical sayings.

I never claimed "expertise" when it comes to "other men's daughters"; that is again something that you have chosen to infer.

I recognized from the start that catholicism is a load of ignorant, superstitious nonsense.

It was later, when I encountered "christianity", that I recognized that it is very similar to catholicism, in that it is also a load of ignorant, superstitious nonsense.

You need to pay attention if you're going to learn anything; I recognized that later, on my own.

You're inferring again; you know what happens when you do that.

GOLDENEAGLES,

Still one question left unanswered:

Would you agree that the best way to establish the original intent of the Scripture is to apply the literal/grammatical/historical/canonical-contextual method of interpretation?--RCofield

Well, an excellent article with comments full of pretty unrelated noise.

It absolutely is a disgrace that the Religious Right wants to impose on the military their sense of regressive theological division against LGBT Americans.

Especially by using the same darn arguments they used against black people and women.

Different targets, same bigotry.

It's still wrong.

More On the Father/Mother God Principle - Part 2

5. And lastly I pointed to the fact that in heaven itself, we see the same male/female pairing within the entire citizenship of the heavenly worlds. Through the heart of the Master Jesus Christ, you can see into the heaven world, and that is what is there. To this I would add, that the area of near-death experiences, where people travel into the heaven world, and come back and report what they see, you find the same male/female pairing of the population.

Please answer this question. Why would God create a world that exhibits such a profound expression regarding the importance of the male/female polarity, if this polarity was not also a fundamental attribute of God himself?

Here we see expressed all around us, this principle, that new life springs forth from Mother, and in this regard, we are given a very valuable context for understanding what it is meant to be born again. How can anything be “born” without Mother? The world was created in such a way as to make possible only one answer to this question. Nothing can be “born” without Mother.

It is actually impossible, to be born again, without the operation of the Mother Principle in God. And if one is in a state of abject denial of the Mother principle in God, guess what? The possibility to be born again is cut off.

Note that the world is structured, by God our Father and Mother, to tell us this truth, that nothing is born, except through the Mother Principle. Apply that principle to the Master’s teaching on being born again:

John 3:3-8

3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

Here, the Master Jesus Christ is pointing directly to the Mother Principle in God.

And so, what is the origin, then, of this stubborn refusal to accept the Mother Principle in God?

It has its origin in the Demon World. They hate the Divine Mother. And they transfer that hatred to the feeling world of those embodied souls who are vulnerable to feeling and expressing hatred. As this is the way that the soul’s path home is effectively cut off.

Where reason and intellectual honesty break down, that is where you will find a demonic presence leaning on the astral body of the vulnerable individual.

More On the Father/Mother God Principle - Part 1

peterhuff asks, “Where is the Scripture(s) that calls God 'Mother?'”

1. I have given you the references in the Book of Genesis that proves beyond any shadow of a doubt (at least to an open mind) that one primary attribute of the image and likeness of God is in the characteristic of the male/female polarity. God created mankind in his likeness. Look around. There are males and females. Not just males.

2. I have shown you in Exodus, where one of the ten commandments points to this truth.

3. I have pointed to the creation itself, which contains a vast array of examples, in nearly every department of life, as proof that God our Father and Mother, wanted us to understand, that the male/female polarity is a very fundamental part of the Character of God. For them that have eyes to see, let them see.

4. I have given you several plausible reasons why the Biblical record does not record the Master Jesus referring to God as Mother, to which I will add another here.

I explained at length how a teaching given in a particular time must accommodate the current capacity of the people to receive it. The people in general did not have the capacity to receive this truth at the time. I explained why that was so. God must be careful not to give the people more than they can handle. And moreover, a point of truth that seems totally implausible to the people will not be uttered by them, from ear to ear, and will therefore not be recorded decades after the fact.

The Master Jesus probably taught this principle in private to his most close disciples. But what the Master taught privately to his closest disciples, did not end up in the public record as far as I know.

Rcofield asserts that the Father/Mother God principle is found in some of the gnostic gospels, but was considered by the authorities who decided on the content of the bible as we know it, to be heresy, so this was not included. I am not a student of the gnostic gospels. But this reference helps to make my point. There was a great resistance to this idea through Old Testament times, up through the New Testament times, the reason for which I tried to explain. And which your own stubborn resistance, reincarnated, helps to illustrate.

p.s. And so, you have a new and proper goal to wake up to in the morning. That is not a bad thing, that is a good thing. It is not just good for you, it is good for the world.

Mark 9:23 - Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.

Let's get our belief structures adjusted, so that we can manifest the promise of this victory recorded in John 14:12.

One of the first adjustments required, would be to take out the current NON-BELIEF concerning our potential to manifest this victory, and put in its place the jewel of BELIEF. After all, “all things are possible to him that believeth.” And then we need to practice holding onto that belief day by day. A belief that is not held onto, that is not really a belief is it?

The next adjusment to make, would be to remove that chunk of NON-FAITH in the Master’s word in this area, and replace it with a jewel of STRONG FAITH in the Master’s word in this area. And again, we need to practice holding onto the jewel of strong faith day by day. A faith that is not held onto, that is not really faith is it?

The next adjustment to make is to re-orienate our prayer life in support of the achievement of this goal.

Many more adjustments are required.

On the Subject of Memory - Part 2

In this regard, it is fruitful to juxtapose the following statements made by the Master Jesus Christ. In every case where the Master Jesus explains what are the benefits of believing on him, it will always be the promise recorded in John 14:12 that will give the soul the evidence that it has achieved the full integration of the belief structure to which the Master is always referring.

And this reality check is necessary, as false pastors, and false ministers, as they are being manipulated by demonic influences, have been continuously playing with the minds of the people, over the last 2,000 years, distorting the belief structure that is required for the victory of the soul. One pastor will say this, another will say that. The Master understood the chaos that would reign in this regard. That is why he set forth the elements of the final exam in John 14:12, so that the soul would know, and not be deceived, concerning the question of the validity of the integrity and veracity of the current belief structure.

If the soul has not arrived in that place of spiritual developement indicated, where these works can be made manifest, then the soul does not have the right belief structure integrated into the soul psychology.

John 6:47 - Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

John 7:38 - He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

John 11:25 - Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: 26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die.

Mark 9:23 - Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.

John 14:12 - Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

Does the disciple have the belief structure correct, and fully integrated? The ability to do the works of Jesus Christ, as promised in John 14:12, this is the final exam. This is the proof to the Teacher, that the student has got it right, that the student has mastered the material. This is the proof of the pudding. The soul that can pass this final exam, that soul is now ready to resume a normal life, within the heavenly domains, properly and completely restored to his native and original status of sonship in the family of God.

On the Subject of Memory - Part 1

Rcofield asks, “Do you recall hearing any of the sermons of Christ that are recorded in the four Gospels? If so, can you supply us with any details that were not recorded?”

John 14:26 - But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

These memories do not come within an explicit Galilean context of course. They come only as the memory of applicable principle in time of need.

For the most faithful disciples, who have made every effort to understand and live by the Master’s Teaching --- eschewing all internecine hatreds for example, learning to live by the law of love, which requires death to demons by the way, in the same manner that love requires the death to all mosquitos --- they can rise to levels of the intermediate heaven worlds in between embodiments to attend additional face to face sermons given by the Master Jesus Christ. And the Holy Spirit, as is indicated in the above reference, can bring ideas and principles learned there, to our memory while in embodiment in subsequent life times.

There is quite an incentive therefore, to break all ties to the demon world while in embodiment, learning to identify the signs of demon manipulation, and taking the nessecary steps to eliminate that manipulation, so that we can rise quickly to higher levels to take advantage of these higher educational opportunities in between embodiments.

Each soul will continue to transition in and out of embodiment until the soul has achieved the level of self-mastery implied in the promise of John 14:12. Here in the upper chamber the Master has given his last word on this subject. Setting forth the elements of the final exam, being able to manifest a matrix of works, which proves that you have mastered all the necessary principles, which allows the soul to move on, from the earth domain of experience, back into the heavenly kingdom on a permanent basis, never having to go through another death experience associated within another earth domain embodiment.

On the Subject of Hell

Psolus asks, “What the hell is wrong with you?”

This statement represents another profound error in perception.

What you should have done first, Psolus, is look in the mirror, and then ask of yourself, “What the hell is wrong with me?” Now, that would have been wisdom in action.

And in that context, the use of the word “hell” is appropriate, as the population of the demonic world is the same thing as the population of hell.

You wonder how hell can come upon the earth? This is how it is done. The demonic world leans on the feeling world of man with its extremely potent, negative, and poisonous feeling energies, and people act out these feelings. And those watching these events unfold, say to themselves, surely, this is “hell on earth.”

For example, every time you see a suicide bomber walking into the midst of a group of innocent civilians, you see the demonic world in action. This level of hatred has only one origin, and that is the demonic world.

As another example, all the atrocities associated with Communism over the years is driven by this demonic manipulation. Especially worthy of note are the atrocities committed against the nuns, priests, pastors, religious believers, and so forth, and the destruction of thousands of churches in the wake of the Communist revolution in Russia, repeated in every location wherein the Communists came into power. When the Communist forces rolled over Tibet, for example, we saw the same thing, the wanton destruction of religious temples and religious people.

It is important for anyone and everyone to understand, if they have allowed the demonic world entry into their world, to any degree that can be considered a consistent tie, whereby the demonic influence has control of the way a person consistently views a given topic, for example, the Atheist’s hatred for everything religious, which is a demonic imposed hatred, or the Protestant hatred for anything Catholic, which is likewise a demonic imposed hatred, that these individuals, when they transition out of the body at the time of “death”, their souls will come face to face with their teachers, in this case the demon that has control over them from one degree to another.

That means, because of this demonic tie into the feeling world, the soul must transition into the domain of hell itself, to confront the origin of these anti-God, and rebellious tendencies, that have had control over the soul during its time in embodiment. It is always the better part of wisdom to break these demonic ties before leaving embodiment.

RCofield,

"So...you see practicing symbiotic parasitism on the fairer sex as treating them as "equals?""

I practice "symbiotic parasitism" (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) on "other men's daughters" only if both they and I consent; the fathers have no say in the matter, by the way, as the "other men's daughters" are always of the age of consent (as specified by the local constabulary) or older.

GoldenEagles,

"Indeed, Psolus in his last post, put aside his parody routine, and actually responded in a serious and coherent manner."

You appear to have an extremely bizarre concept of "a serious and coherent manner"; I'm not surprised, by the way.

"In that vein, Psolus says, “I was not ‘duped into thinking’ anything; I recognized it for what it is from the start.”
I would point out that it is not correct to say “I recognized it for what it is from the start.”"

It is correct for me; your insanity may vary.

"That statement expresses a profound error in perception."

No, that statement expresses a profound difference from your warped perception.

"What you should say is,[extremely bizarre gibberish expurgated out of respect for the human race]"

No, that is not what I should have said; hell, you shouldn't even had said that.

What the hell is wrong with you?

Do your parents not medicate you?

RCofield,

"Is that what they taught you in Catholic school?!"

That is what you told walter-in-fallschurch that you interpreted that your god told you to believe in your magical book of magical sayings.

"Given your “expertise” when it comes to women, I was just wondering if the local strip club (and Motel 6; see below) was your only source of experience with them."

I never claimed "expertise" when it comes to "other men's daughters"; that is again something that you have chosen to infer.

"So…you recognized from the start that Catholicism was not Christianity?"

I recognized from the start that catholicism is a load of ignorant, superstitious nonsense.

It was later, when I encountered "christianity", that I recognized that it is very similar to catholicism, in that it is also a load of ignorant, superstitious nonsense.

"Ah! So you were duped into believing something that you were taught in Catholic school."

You need to pay attention if you're going to learn anything; I recognized that later, on my own.

"You seem to have quite the fascination with Motel 6. I wonder if the objects of your symbiotic parasitism were duly impressed (with the Motel, I mean)."

You're inferring again; you know what happens when you do that.

PEREGRINE,

Darn! Can't believe I let this one slip by:

I can understand you thinking that I am magnanimous because I treat "other men's daughters" as equals,...--PSOLUS

GOLDENEAGLES,

My center of ideological gravity is in the Teachings of the Master Jesus Christ. I have a friendly relationship to these Teachings and to those in the Old Testament. Indeed they feel like old friends to me. And I think this is probably because I was in embodiment during those years when Jesus Christ was involved in his ministry, and I think it is possible that I may have been able to attend some of his public sermons. I know I was clearly captivated by his message at the time, and I was a very strong advocate for it.--GE

Rcofield says, “Well, I guess were making "progress," such as it is.”

Indeed, Psolus in his last post, put aside his parody routine, and actually responded in a serious and coherent manner.

In that vein, Psolus says, “I was not ‘duped into thinking’ anything; I recognized it for what it is from the start.”

I would point out that it is not correct to say “I recognized it for what it is from the start.”

That statement expresses a profound error in perception.

What you should say is, “I FELT a demonic presence making a mockery of the Teachings of Christ, I FELT those feelings of mockery in my own feeling world, and I was deceived into believing that these feelings were my own feelings. I backed away in disbelief only because I was being manipulated to do so by these intrusive feelings.”

This is how the demonic world breaks down the unity of the Body of God on earth.

PEREGRINE,

I can understand you thinking that I am magnanimous because I treat "other men's daughters" as equals, instead of as domestic slaves, specially "designed" by an imaginary magical entity to cook, clean, and squirt out babies for the benefit of the "superiorly designed" men.

Nope; again, what is the source of your curiosity?

I was not "duped into thinking" anything; I recognized it for what it is from the start.

And, if one actually thinks about it, all of the so called "christian" religions are really just "cafeteria catholic" religions, as most, if not all of them, simply broke off from that particular strain of ignorant superstitions.

I know, you just found it at a Motel 6 and kept it.

GOLDENEAGLES,

Well, I guess were making "progress," such as it is. Two down, one to go.

+++++++++++++++++
Would you agree that the best way to establish the original intent of the Scripture is to apply the literal/grammatical/historical/canonical-contextual method of interpretation?

RCofield,

"I know, I know. You didn't say “I see myself as being magnanimous...”"

I can understand you thinking that I am magnanimous because I treat "other men's daughters" as equals, instead of as domestic slaves, specially "designed" by an imaginary magical entity to cook, clean, and squirt out babies for the benefit of the "superiorly designed" men.

"So, you've never been married?"

Nope; again, what is the source of your curiosity?

"Yes, given the utterly superstitious and unbiblical teachings of the Catholic church I am quite familiar with a number of people like yourself who were duped into thinking that Catholicism was Christianity."

I was not "duped into thinking" anything; I recognized it for what it is from the start.

And, if one actually thinks about it, all of the so called "christian" religions are really just "cafeteria catholic" religions, as most, if not all of them, simply broke off from that particular strain of ignorant superstitions.

"I too have rejected “all of the ignorant superstitious beliefs with which the priests and nuns” indoctrinate people, so we at least have that in common."

What makes us different is that you have chosen to believe a slightly different subset of "all of the ignorant superstitious beliefs with which the priests and nuns try to indoctrinate people".

And, you attempt to indoctrinate other people with your particular brand of ignorant, superstitious beliefs.

"I do not own a magical book of magical sayings."

I know, you just found it at a Motel 6 and kept it.

The New Age of Christian Victory -
John 14:12 - Connecting the Dots ... (revised)

These three statements of the Master Jesus Christ need to be summed together to understand what it will take to bring in the New Age of Christian Victory

1. It is God the Father who Doeth the Works

John 14:10 - Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

2. God the Father will do the same works through each of us.

John 14:12 - Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

3. To Enter into this Kingdom of Christian Victory, we must devote out lives to the Will of God.

Matthew 7:21 - "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

Now is the time to stand up and make this happen before America is completely overrun by the mudslide of moral depravity and debauchery represented by the homosexual rights movement, an outcome that will draw the fate of the City of Sodom, upon the nation of America.

The following prayer, unto the Master, would of course be the first step in the right direction:

”My Blessed Brother Jesus, I want to know for sure that I am believing in you, and your mission, and the Will of God our Father and Mother which your mission expresses, in the proper manner. Please fulfill this promise in me. If my belief structures are incorrect, please help me to correct them. I look forward to doing all the works you did, and more, according to your promise, at the earliest possible opportunity. Amen.”

Hi GoldenEagles,

That is a very tortured and convoluted piece of logic there Peterhuff. You are arguing against the meaning of words, and the natural pathways of reason. Down that path is an abyss. - GE

The more I dialog with you GoldenEagles, the more apparent it becomes that you are preaching a different Jesus (Galatians 1:6-10; 2 Corinthians 11:3-4; 12-15)

Arguments generated from the domain of hatred always exhibit the quality of mind-wrenching blindness. And your argument in this area, the whole post in fact exhibits this quality of mind-wrenching blindness. In the midst of this dark passion to prove that the Divine Mother does not exist, you neglect to remember, that God made the Holy Angels in male/female pairs as well. And they are absolutely pure. And the citizens of heaven in general, are made in male/female pairs. And they are absolutely pure. The male/female polarity is a fundamental attribute of the very character of God. - GE

What?

Here, out of your hatred for the Divine Mother, we see you spin outlandish arguments that try to “prove” that the Divine Mother does not exist. - GE

Where is the Scripture(s) that calls God 'Mother?'

You never refer to any Scripture at all when you make these absurd claims, such as your angel quote above. If you can't produce the Scriptures what reason do you have other the taking things out of Scripture that aren't there, that what you are saying is true?

I've shown you Scriptures that refer to the image and likeness of God a referring to His purity, holiness and righteousness, as well as knowing Him.

Moreover, is this not one of the very reasons that the Christian Community in general could not fulfill the promise of the Master made in John 14:12, because they have insisted on keeping one foot in the camp of the Atheists in their stubborn hatred of the Divine Mother? - GE

You have still not answered my questions after I took all that time to reply to you.

THE NEW AGE OF CHRISTIAN VICTORY
JOHN 14:12 - CONNECTING THE DOTS ...

These three statements of the Master Jesus Christ need to be summed together to understand what it will take to bring in the New Age of Christian Victory

1. It is God the Father who Doeth the Works

John 14:10 - Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

2. God the Father will do the same works through each of us.

John 14:12 - Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

3. To Enter into this Kingdom of Christian Victory, we must devote out lives to the Will of God.

Matthew 7:21 - "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

Now is the time to stand up and make this happen before America is completely overrun by the mudslide of moral depravity and debauchery represented by the homosexual rights movement, an outcome that will draw the fate of the City of Sodom, upon the nation of America.

WALTER,

Part 1 of 2

over my head?! more like speaking of not dealing with the substance of a post....

do you think woman should be allowed to serve in government? or are they not "designed" for that?! ...do you long for the good ol' (sexist) days of yore when women knew their place? are women properly equipped to vote? or should we repeal the 19th amendment?

Nevertheless, I have no problem answering your questions. Avoidance of questions and supporting argumentation is your specialty, not mine.

I generally have no problem with women serving in government, though I question the sanity of that position rather often since the rise to power of the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer. The passages you are referring to address Christian churches and homes, not governments.

And no, I would not “repeal the 19th.” There exists no prohibition in scripture against a woman voting, either in social matters or church matters, the position of your “church” and “pastors” notwithstanding.

Now it is your turn. I have posed an number of reasonable questions and offered several arguments to support my position on this issue. You seem to have avoided dealing with any of them so far, preferring rather to attack my conclusion as if your mere disagreement with it is sufficient to render it invalid. It is really not complicated: Just cut and paste what I have offered and respond to each question and supporting argument.

what's with all the "neutered" "emasculated" talk? does it make you feel tough to oppress women?

WALTER,

Part 2 of 2

i understand that you're more comfortable with "biblical" sex roles, but shouldn't that be the woman's choice?

when i answered your "shoveling the driveway" bit, that was a throwaway answer - sort of. i really would prefer that she let me harvest snow from the driveway as it is the best source of "clean" snow".

but to to answer you seriously, and follow your scenario to its logical end, in your world women would not be ALLOWED to shovel driveways (or participate in government). in my book that would be sexist.

And in "my world" real men insist on shoveling the snow from the driveway for reasons far more noble than an "obsession" with snow sculpting....But, of course, you think that is quite a hoot, don't you? Why don't you run this one and the prostitution thing by Mrs. Walter and see what she thinks?

your sexism would be shocking - except that my expectations we so low to begin with...

PEREGRINE,

I never claimed that I "see myself as being magnanimous" about any of my interactions with "other men's daughters". That is simply yet one more thing that you, apparently, have chosen to believe about me. Why do you do that?

Second, those "other men's daughters" have to pay the rent and utilities, and buy food, just like the rest of us. I am not too proud to help them earn a living.--PSOUS

By the way, all of my interactions with "other men's daughters" are, and always have been, symbiotic.

I was sent to catholic schools, but as you should be able to plainly see by now, I have rejected all of the ignorant superstitious beliefs with which the priests and nuns tried to indoctrinate me.

Does your magical book of magical sayings have these poems?

(spelling correction for Part 1 - "practitioner") The answer to your question, from the perspective in which you have asked the question, in terms of the composition of “New Age Ideology” as it currently exists today, is generally NO. I am not a practitioner of that New Age Ideology such as it is. (however and so forth)

Regarding the New Age that
Would Blossom Forth When
the Disciples of Christ Learn
How to Fullfill the Promise
of the Master In John 14:12 - Part 3

But let there be no confusion on this point. The Teachings of the Master Jesus Christ do contain principles which approach ultimate truth, for example, the one shepherd scenario quoted above.

For it is the Will of God our Father and Mother for the people of the earth to come under one shepherd. This is one of the primary goals of the overall redemptive process. This is a prerequisite for the Kingdom of Heaven to come to the earth.

And against this backdrop does the functional value of the promise given by the Master Jesus Christ recorded in John 14:12 comes into stark relief.

Clearly, if the most devoted disciples of the Master Jesus Christ could fulfill the promise expressed by the Master in John 14:12, this would become the magnet that would finally draw all the people of the earth into the one shepherd scenario which the Master articulated in the quote above.

What would be the reaction of Psolus, for example, his previous remarks notwithstanding, if he saw PeterHuff or Rcofield, walk on water, and make the blind to see, and make water into wine, and so forth. Yes, it is inescapable. Psolus and Cornbread too, would all of sudden start listening. All of a sudden his/their mind would become open to the authority of the Teachings of the Master Jesus Christ. It’s like they are all from Iowa, the show me state. They are all doubting Thomas’ who won’t believe until they can see and touch some aspect of the truth in a physical manifestation. This would be a start, for in this way, did the Master Jesus himself bring the doubters to heel. Though not all.

If this was the methodology the Master Jesus Christ himself had to use to get the attention of the disbelievers, why would this be any different with his disciples? Do his disciples have powers of persuasion greater than the Master himself? Truly, historical experience proves otherwise.

Regarding the New Age that
Would Blossom Forth When
the Disciples of Christ Learn
How to Fulfil the Promise
of the Master In John 14:12 - Part 2

You will NOT find many at the summit. The ability to fulfill that promise made by the Master in John 14:12, represents a soul who has reached the summit.

Yes, people, and nations, are at different points on this mountain path. But they are all moving in the direction of the one summit.

John 10:16 - And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, [and] one shepherd.

We can see in this process, whereby God our Father and Mother plants the electrode of truth in the midst of a particular culture, configuring it in a such a way that it can be assimilated at the people’s current level of spiritual development, a necessary step of preparation (for that culture) that would instill in the cultural fabric a set of basic principles which would enable the people to more easily approach the Truth that the Master Jesus Christ would later bring.

This applies to every religion. There is enough truth in every religion, that will enable the people to approach the Teachings of Jesus Christ in a friendly manner. But human beings have this tendency to get stuck in a rut. They get comfortable where they are. And even if they hear the voice that calls them to a higher path, they will not move.

And too many, in every nation, get trapped on this flypaper of delusion (which is a demon supported dilemma) that the truth they have a hold of in their particular tradition, represents the final and ultimate statement of truth for the world. And their minds become closed, in a very unnatural manner, to the very possibility, that the rose bud they have in their hand, could ever blossom. So surfeited in delusion have they become, that if the rose were to blossom, or someone suggest that the rose was supposed to blossom, they would call it blasphemy.

(It would be far better for people to see the truths which they have in their possession, in their particular traditions, as seeds, from which larger trees of truth are intended to grow. This is the intent of God our Father and Mother as they hand out their seed packets from culture to culture.)

And in this regard, it would be truly wise to see that the pure gold of spiritual truth, found in each tradition, is actually meant to complement the peoples comprehension of the whole truth. If this principle can be viewed from the perspective of each tradition, you can see how it serves as an antidote to the poison of delusion mentioned in the flypaper metaphor above (Pv)

Regarding the New Age that
Would Blossom Forth When
the Disciples of Christ Learn
How to Fullfill the Promise
of the Master In John 14:12 - Part 1

RCofield asks, “Are you a practitioner of New Age ideology?”

The answer to your question, from the perspective in which you have asked the question, in terms of the composition of “New Age Ideology” as it currently exists today, is generally NO. I am not a practionaer of that New Age Ideology such as it is.

However, as you can see from the title to this post, I have my own definition for the New Age to come.

My center of ideological gravity is in the Teachings of the Master Jesus Christ. I have a friendly relationship to these Teachings and to those in the Old Testament. Indeed they feel like old friends to me. And I think this is probably because I was in embodiment during those years when Jesus Christ was involved in his ministry, and I think it is possible that I may have been able to attend some of his public sermons. I know I was clearly captivated by his message at the time, and I was a very strong advocate for it.

Beyond that, my ideology is Truth. Wherever there is Truth, I will recognize it, and bow down before it, no matter what religion it might appear in.

John 10:16 - And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, [and] one shepherd.

In regards to this important question, as to whether there is truth in other religions (sheep not of this fold) we see that over the course of time, God our Father and Mother would send their Messengers into various cultures, and plant therein, an electrode of truth, that the people, according to their level of spiritual development, would be able to accept and assimiliate. We see in this regard, that every culture is different. Every culture will be found at a different point on the mountain path.

In climbing this mountain path to the summit of truth, you will find some people still down in the valley. Actually you will find most people still down in the valley. (Please visualize)

You will find some people on the long journey to the base camp. Which is many miles. (Pv)

You will find some who have arrived at base camp 1, and who have camped out there for a time. Their guides have tutored them regarding the necessity to stop for awhile to aclimate themselves to the rarified air. (Pv)

And then you will find some climbing the mountain path from base camp 1 to base camp 2. (Pv)

You will find some who have arrived at base camp 2, and who have camped out there for a time, and for the same reason. (Pv)

You will find some climbing from base camp 2 to base camp 3. (Pv)

And you will find some who have arrived at base camp 3, and who have camped out there for a time. (Pv)

And then you will find some on the path that leads from base camp 3 to the summit. (Pv)

GoldenEagles,

"The disciple should be able to...[bunch of magical stuff expurgated]...give good sermons which are able to convert people to a state of belief and understanding regarding the requirements to enter the Kingdom of Heaven - like Psolus for example."

Good luck with that; do you really believe that you will succeed where RCofield, peterhuff, and a bunch of crazy priests and nuns have failed?

Will your failure prove that you, along with RCofield and peterhuff, are false disciples of your imaginary gods?

rco,
what's with all the "neutered" "emasculated" talk? does it make you feel tough to oppress women?

i understand that you're more comfortable with "biblical" sex roles, but shouldn't that be the woman's choice?

when i answered your "shoveling the driveway" bit, that was a throwaway answer - sort of. i really would prefer that she let me harvest snow from the driveway as it is the best source of "clean" snow".

but to to answer you seriously, and follow your scenario to its logical end, in your world women would not be ALLOWED to shovel driveways (or participate in government). in my book that would be sexist.

your sexism would be shocking - except that my expectations we so low to begin with...

Re: John 14:12 - Works

Rcofield says, “it would probably be helpful if you would indicate exactly what “greater works than these” you think Christ meant in this passage (John 14:12). What works do you think Christ was referring to? What works to you think a Christian should be doing if they have “succeeded in achieving the belief structure referred to by the Master?”

Responding to the latter question first, the minimum range of works that the disciple should be able to manifest, if he, or she, has fully assimilated the belief structure to which the Master Jesus Christ has referred, are the works that he publically accomplished during his ministry. The disciple should be able to heal withered hands, make the blind to see, cleanse the lepers, multiply the loaves and fishes, make water into wine, pass through, unharmed, those who are intent on stoning him to death, make the lame to walk, make water into wine, walk on water, and raise people from the dead, cast out demons, give good sermons which are able to convert people to a state of belief and understanding regarding the requirements to enter the Kingdom of Heaven - like Psolus for example.

As to what would be greater works than these, in this regard, the sky is the limit, as they say, in as much as with God ALL things are possible. The minimum range of works would be the foundation upon which the higher superstructure of greater works would be built.

This would go a long way to raising the veracity of the Christian Belief Structure in the eyes of the people generally.

rco,
over my head?! more like
speaking of not dealing with the substance of a post....

do you think woman should be allowed to serve in government? or are they not "designed" for that?! ...do you long for the good ol' (sexist) days of yore when women knew their place? are women properly equipped to vote? or should we repeal the 19th amendment?

RCofield,

"Maybe you could find and post a poem here about men with no testicles?"

Does your magical book of magical sayings have these poems?

Post away; I could use the laughs.

"These guys are pitiful."

Yeah, we're really pitiful.

"They've been neutered by the feminists."

So, that's what happened to them.

I thought it was just age.

RCofield,

"And this from someone who holds women in such high regard that he sees himself as being magnanimous when he pays other men's daughters to take off their clothes so that he may ogle them."

I never claimed that I "see myself as being magnanimous" about any of my interactions with "other men's daughters".

That is simply yet one more thing that you, apparently, have chosen to believe about me.

Why do you do that?

By the way, all of my interactions with "other men's daughters" are, and always have been, symbiotic.

"No. Are you by chance married?"

No, I am not by chance married; why do you ask?

"Not at all. Were you by chance Catholic-schooled?"

I was sent to catholic schools, but as you should be able to plainly see by now, I have rejected all of the ignorant superstitious beliefs with which the priests and nuns tried to indoctrinate me.

That's why I have been telling you that you can choose not to believe the ignorant superstitious beliefs that you currently hold; unless, of course, you simply want to believe them.

Oooops. Didn't mean to post that one twice. But, then again, maybe it needed to be posted twice.

PETERHUFF,

Maybe you could find and post a poem here about men with no testicles?

These guys are pitiful. They've been neutered by the feminists.

PETERHUFF,

Maybe you could find and post a poem here about men with no testicles?

These guys are pitiful. They've been neutered by the feminists.

WALTER,

omg! that is totally sexist.

no, i shovel the driveway because my wife would get all the snow dirty thus rendering it unusable for my obsession:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/58171957@N00/

yes you may. there's no point in discussing anything if/until you can understand how "women can't have authority over men" is sexist.

oh brother....that's totally sexist - not chivalrous or "masculine" as i'm sure you rationalize it in your mind.

Let me guess. You're not going to deal with my rebuttals until I agree with you, right?

PEREGRINE,

That is certainly some old-timey religious beliefs that you believe regarding women.

I find it amazing that an adult in this country, and in this century, would hold on to such archaic beliefs.

Were you by chance home-schooled?

Also, do you believe that a menstruating woman is unclean, or evil, or possessed, or just being punished, by your god, for eve's sin?

"...men are better designed for the rigors and responsibilities of pastoral ministry..."

omg! that is totally sexist.

do you think woman should be allowed to serve in government? or are they not "designed" for that?! ...do you long for the good ol' (sexist) days of yore when women knew their place? are women properly equipped to vote? or should we repeal the 19th amendment?

you said,
"So you take the responsibility for shoveling the snow because your wife is not designed to do such a task nearly as well as you are."

no, i shovel the driveway because my wife would get all the snow dirty thus rendering it unusable for my obsession:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/58171957@N00/

you snarked;
"And finally, shall I presume you have no intention of responding to my rebuttals in the last series of posts on the other thread?"

yes you may. there's no point in discussing anything if/until you can understand how "women can't have authority over men" is sexist. but apparently you can't even see how sexist your most recent 3-part reply was:

"Pastoring people is a difficult responsibility....The job is stressful, emotionally demanding beyond comprehension...dealing with the dark underbelly of wicked, depraved humanity....men are better designed for the rigors and responsibilities of pastoral ministry...because God equipped us for taking on these sometimes difficult responsibilities."

oh brother....that's totally sexist - not chivalrous or "masculine" as i'm sure you rationalize it in your mind.

RCofield,

Regarding parts 1 - 3 below:

That is certainly some old-timey religious beliefs that you believe regarding women.

I find it amazing that an adult in this country, and in this century, would hold on to such archaic beliefs.

Were you by chance home-schooled?

Also, do you believe that a menstruating woman is unclean, or evil, or possessed, or just being punished, by your god, for eve's sin?

GOLDENEAGLES,

Before I respond to your latest series of posts, may I ask you to respond to the following issues that I raised in my previous series of posts (from the previous thread)?
++++++++++++++++++

Additionally, it would probably be helpful if you would indicate exactly what “greater works than these” you think Christ meant in this passage (John 14:12). What works do you think Christ was referring to? What works to you think a Christian should be doing if they have “succeeded in achieving the belief structure referred to by the Master?”
+++++++++++++++++

Would you agree that the best way to establish the original intent of the Scripture is to apply the literal/grammatical/historical/canonical-contextual method of interpretation?
+++++++++++++++++

This concept of androgyny (both in God and mankind) was a commonly held heretical belief of the ancient Gnostics that has been recently “resurrected” by proponents of the “New Age” movement. Other concepts that are commonly posited by the New Age movement are the ideas of “soul psychology,” and “reincarnation,” and “demonology.” These are ideas that you have advanced in a number of your posts.

(I would now add to the above list the concepts of “love is a divine energy” and the anti-patriarchal language of your most recent posts.)

Are you a practitioner of New Age ideology?
+++++++++++++++++

Thank you in advance for your responses.

WALTER,

Part 1 of 3

??!?! what the hell are you talking about? you must be intentionally obfuscating? but to follow along w/your crazy misdirection/tangent here, the secular equivalent 1tim2:12 would be if women were not allowed to be judges, or anywhere in government...

This idea of an established hierarchy of authority is evident in every area of our lives. You stated that I Corinthians 11 established the following: “basically, man : christ :: wife : husband.” Man must submit to the authority of Christ, and women to the authority of husbands...and this can be easily extended yet another step in that children are instructed to submit to the authority of both parents, father and mother. Just as judges have authority to uphold laws, law enforcement must submit to and enforce those law, and you must submit to and obey those laws. That is a clear order of authority, and the passages that you are referring to as “sexist” are simply establishing this self-evident and necessary order. They have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with “discrimination” or the denial of “rights.”

So my questions still beg answers:

Do these facts place you in a “lower status” as a citizen than these judges “in the prescribed social hierarchy” of this land? Are they “discriminating” against you? Are you any less a citizen of this nation than they because they exercise authority over you? Are you being denied any “rights” because they have authority over you?

WALTER,

Part 2 of 3

Further, I stated:

"I am a pastor of a congregation. I assure you that being such is no "right." Rather it is a weighty and difficult responsibility."

To which you responded:

oh brother... semantics again.... ok, why shouldn't a woman be allowed/trusted with that "responsibility"? would your church allow that? a woman pastor or preacher or whatever? what denomination are you? many, being adherent to sexist scripture, don't.

You ask why a woman would not be given the responsibility of pastoring a congregation. The answer is the same as above. Pastoring people is a difficult responsibility. Pastors deal with sinful, sometimes vindictive people who will often intentionally inflict pain on a pastor, and we have to take it without responding in kind. The job is stressful, emotionally demanding beyond comprehension, requires going without sleep sometimes for days, and generally dealing with the dark underbelly of wicked, depraved humanity. I deal with issues every week as a pastor that I would never want to expose my wife to and make her responsible for dealing with them. Simply put, men are better designed for the rigors and responsibilities of pastoral ministry in much the same way that men are better designed to shovel snow—simply because God equipped us for taking on these sometimes difficult responsibilities.

Does that make my wife less than my equal? Certainly not! There is an almost endless list of responsibilities that my wife is far better designed and equipped to accomplish than I am. My wife is more than my equal as far as individual worth is concerned.

WALTER,

Part 3 of 3

The fact that men are required by scripture to protect women from some of the more harsh responsibilities of life that they are not designed to deal with is far from being sexist, Walter. It is simply recognizing the infinite worth of a woman and honoring her as such by taking on, as men, the responsibilities of masculinity so that women can be truly feminine.

Your problem may well be that you have allowed the modern “feminist” movement to emasculate you (as it has most of the men in our culture) when it comes to your views on womanhood, and you are afraid of the wrath of “feminists” who have taken on the responsibilities of masculinity. And said women are not genuinely feminine, for they have taken on a perverted form of masculinity that manifests itself in terms of them becoming domineering.

I bet you don't find a domineering woman attractive at all, do you? (I hope I'm right on that one) Why? Because they are trying to be something that God did not design them to be. You earlier acknowledged the biological difference of a woman (to which you exclaimed “viva la difference!”). I agree whole-heartedly!! But the difference does not end with the physical. The very characteristics that make a woman truly feminine and attractive are completely discarded in the modern feminist movement because their objective has become that of insisting that women take on the characteristics of masculinity. Any woman who buys into this perversion forfeits the genuine beauty and glory of biblical femininity. If you will think about it even for a moment I am sure you have encountered such women. I seriously doubt that you find them attractive.

In the end, the feminist movement is not about rights. It is about forcing women to take on responsibilities that they are not designed to shoulder. So I stand by my contention: You are conflating "rights" and God-appointed responsibilities in your diatribe about scripture being “sexist.”

And finally, shall I presume you have no intention of responding to my rebuttals in the last series of posts on the other thread?

peter,
thanks for the replies.

i'm surprised you can't admit "stomach swell and thigh waste away" means "have a miscarriage". so, you think, if she had had extra-marital sex, fat moved from her thighs to her tummy? or something like that...? that would be weird and arbitrary... seems to me like it's a euphemism.

there's another bible verse, i can't recall which, where they're talking about making sure a man is properly clothed as he approached the temple or walked up some steps so his "thigh" wouldn't show. i think there's widespread agreement that in that verse "thigh" means "genitals".

have you read the NIV version of numbers 5? i thought that was "your" version. it says "miscarry". are you abandoning the NIV in general? or just for this particular verse? which version is inerrant?

in all versions, verse 28 says something about how if she's guilty she won't be able to have children.
----------

anyway, never mind about this. when you can wrest yourself away from GE, can you address my sexism charges? shall i quote you NIV versions of those verses i quoted for rco on november 9 at 11:47, 11:49 and 11:51?

Peterhuff says, "You are confusing categories and mistaking image and likeness to mean male and female instead of the divine qualities of purity, righteousness, holiness and dominion along with the ability to know God and worship Him."

That is a very tortured and convoluted piece of logic there Peterhuff. You are arguing against the meaning of words, and the natural pathways of reason. Down that path is an abyss.

Arguments generated from the domain of hatred always exhibit the quality of mind-wrenching blindness. And your argument in this area, the whole post in fact exhibits this quality of mind-wrenching blindness. In the midst of this dark passion to prove that the Divine Mother does not exist, you neglect to remember, that God made the Holy Angels in male/female pairs as well. And they are absolutely pure. And the citizens of heaven in general, are made in male/female pairs. And they are absolutely pure. The male/female polarity is a fundamental attribute of the very character of God.

Your argument reminds me very much of the arguments of the Atheists. Atheists have a strong degree of hatred for God in general, and out of that hatred, they spin these outlandish arguments that “prove” that God does not exist.

Here, out of your hatred for the Divine Mother, we see you spin outlandish arguments that try to “prove” that the Divine Mother does not exist.

In most cases you can express yourself in a logical and coherent manner. I will give you that. But in this subject area you appear to be in the grip of a temper tantrum.

“I don’t want hear that God is Mother! I Hate Her! She does not exist!”

Is this not one half of Atheism itself?

Moreover, is this not one of the very reasons that the Christian Community in general could not fulfill the promise of the Master made in John 14:12, because they have insisted on keeping one foot in the camp of the Atheists in their stubborn hatred of the Divine Mother?

Hi Walter,

how is it like an employer/employee relationship if the slave is required to stay FOR LIFE, if the employee may be "bequeathed" in a will? if the slaves children become the PROPERTY of the master?

As I believe I explained a long time back. When you agree to work for an employer you put yourself under contract to him to do what he requires of you. You are selling your services for money in order to provide for your family or yourself and agree to his conditions. Some employees work for a lifetime for the same employer and in return they receive the benefits that the two parties have agreed to.

as i recall, your contention was more that god used slavery to teach us something about submission or some thing like that, which i found morally unsatisfying, but at least it was intellectually honest - given the biblical text

Yes, the spiritual principle of bondage or slavery to sin. God used the historic examples in the OT such as alluding to the harsh slavery in Egypt and freeing the Israelites from that bondage as examples, to teach us about our spiritual bondage.

I'll dig up some verses for you when I have some time, but here is the principle expressed in just a couple of verses.

"These men are springs without water...For they mouth empty, boastful words and, by appealing to the lustful desires of sinful human nature, they entice people who are just escaping from those who live in error. They promise them freedom, while they themselves are SLAVES OF DEPRAVITY, for a MAN IS A SLAVE TO WHATEVER HAS MASTERED HIM." 2 Peter 2:17-19

"So also, when we were children, we were in slavery under the basic principles of this world." Galatians 4:3

"As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient." Ephesians 2:1-2

"They answered Him, 'We are Abraham's descendants and have never been slaves to anyone. How can you say that we shall be set free.' Jesus replied, 'I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. Now a slave has no permanent place in a family, but a son belongs to it forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed." John 8:33-36

The setting free of the Israelites from Egypt is a typology of Christ setting free the believer, crossing over from the land of slavery to the land of freedom. See Exodus 14:22-31; Acts 7:34 with 1 Corinthians 10:1-11 as one example.

I don't have time now to get into these passages as to their spiritual significance/meaning and their teaching on sin and freedom, but the lesson is there along with other passages, over and over again.

Slavery is equated with sin. Egypt is equated with sin, the Promised Land with freedom, as is the man without Christ in slavery to sin and those in Christ freed from it. His payment is sufficient!

Hi Walter,

here, at this moment, i'm not justifying abortion. i asked you if you thought numbers 5 describes god justifying abortion if the adulteress had become pregnant.

No, I see no such thing. I see a curse coming from the woman drinking the bitter water that causes her stomach to swell and thighs to waste away if she is guilty, but if she is innocent the bitter water will not harm her and cause the swelling or wasting away.

Hi GoldenEagles,

For truly, there is no principle more fundamental to the teachings of the entire Bible,...that we were made in the image and likeness of God. What did God make? God made male and female. What God made, that is in the image and likeness of God. - GE

You are confusing categories and mistaking image and likeness to mean male and female instead of the divine qualities of purity, righteousness, holiness and dominion along with the ability to know God and worship Him.

What is the image and likeness of God?

Ephesians 4:23-24, "to be made new in the attitude of your minds [just like in the Garden]; and to put on the new self, CREATED to be LIKE GOD in true RIGHTEOUSNESS AND HOLINESS."

Righteousness and holiness and purity.

Colossians 3:9-10, "Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator."

Our Creator is holy, righteous and pure as expressed by those who have come into His presence, such as Isaiah (Isaiah 6:3) and John (Revelation 1:17-18; 5:1-14).

Yes, worthy is the Lamb, the righteous and pure and holy Lamb!

Galatians 5;22-24, "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness, and self control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires."

Restored to the nature and image before the Fall!

Hebrews 1:3, "The Son is the radiance of God's being and the exact representation of His Being..."

Colossians 1:15, "He is the image of the invisible God..."

Colossians 2:9, "For in Christ all the fullness of Deity lives in bodily form, and you have been given fullness in Christ..."

And what do we learn of Christ over and over in the Gospels and Epistles. That He is holy, righteous, and pure, always doing the will of the Father and knows Him intimately, and that we have been crucified with Him, our old natures done away with - dead - nailed to the cross, the penalty paid in full, alive in Christ who is eternal life!

Tell me, do you think the hand of creator slipped when he made woman? Did the creator say to himself when woman came out of the mold, “Oops, that’s not really in my image. Let me throw it in the trash” or “Oops, that’s really not in my likeness, let me throw it in the trash.” ??? - GE

No, the hand of the Creator did not slip, but you still mistake and misinterpret and add to the word of God concepts/ideas that are not contained in Scripture. You read them in.

Therefore the creation of male and female, being in the image and likeness of God, means that God MUST BE, both Father and Mother. It is right there in the WORD OF GOD that I have quoted to you. - GE

Where in the Word of God? Where does God express that He is father/mother? Where does He tell us that the image and likeness is male/female?

rco,

i was talking about sexism in the bible and you said,

Walter, you are required by the laws of this nation to submit to the rulings of the Supreme Court Justices and District Court Judges. You are not permitted to stand in the chambers of the Supreme Court Judges and teach them jurisprudence, nor are you allowed to exercise authority in the courtroom of a District Court Judge. These Judges exercise authority over you every day, and you are required by law to submit to their rulings.

Do these facts place you in a “lower status” as a citizen than these judges “in the prescribed social hierarchy” of this land? Are they “discriminating” against you? Are you any less a citizen of this nation than they because they exercise authority over you? Are you being denied any “rights” because they have authority over you?

??!?! what the hell are you talking about? you must be intentionally obfuscating? but to follow along w/your crazy misdirection/tangent here, the secular equivalent 1tim2:12 would be if women were not allowed to be judges, or anywhere in government...

(btw, if you're gonna use them, you gotta put the formatting symbols before and after each paragraph...and maybe check "preview".)

rco, you said,
"I am a pastor of a congregation. I assure you that being such is no "right." Rather it is a weighty and difficult responsibility."

oh brother... semantics again.... ok, why shouldn't a woman be allowed/trusted with that "responsibility"? would your church allow that? a woman pastor or preacher or whatever? what denomination are you? many, being adherent to sexist scripture, don't.

"Hmmm…so you did find the “bible/God condones and advocates forcing people into slavery against their will” and “God is pro-abortion” arguments difficult to “prove” after all."

no... IT'S "baby steps"...

peter, you said,
"How you can ever justify abortion is beyond me Walter."

here, at this moment, i'm not justifying abortion. i asked you if you thought numbers 5 describes god justifying abortion if the adulteress had become pregnant.

WALTER,

there are clearly biological differences (vive la difference!) btwn men and women, BUT they should, in an enlightened world, be granted equal rights. they should be permitted equal access to all parts of the temple/church/mosque.

I am a pastor of a congregation. I assure you that being such is no "right." Rather it is a weighty and difficult responsibility.

WALTER,

You said to Peter Huff:

for now, i'm just gonna focus on the easiest-to-prove immorality in the bible: sexism.

in a non-sexist world, you cannot have instructions regarding social roles like:
1tim2:
11Let a woman learn quietly(T) with all submissiveness. 12(U) I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13(V) For Adam was formed first,(W) then Eve; 14and Adam was not deceived, but(X) the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15Yet she will be saved through(Y) childbearing — if they continue in(Z) faith and love and holiness, with self-control.
and
1 cor11:
3But I want you to understand that(E) the head of every man is Christ,(F) the head of a wife[a] is her husband, and(G) the head of Christ is God.
basically, man : christ :: wife : husband
that's SEXIST - not just describing "different" roles, but a LOWER status for women.

Do these facts place you in a “lower status” as a citizen than these judges “in the prescribed social hierarchy” of this land? Are they “discriminating” against you? Are you any less a citizen of this nation than they because they exercise authority over you? Are you being denied any “rights” because they have authority over you?

And finally, shall I presume you have no intention of responding to my rebuttals in the last series of posts on the other thread?

peter, you said,
"I compared some passages of slavery in the Bible as like what we would term an employee/employer contractual agreement today.

how is it like an employer/employee relationship if the slave is required to stay FOR LIFE, if the employee may be "bequeathed" in a will? if the slaves children become the PROPERTY of the master?

as i recall, your contention was more that god used slavery to teach us something about submission or some thing like that, which i found morally unsatisfying, but at least it was intellectually honest - given the biblical text.

peter,

i appreciate your response. for now, i'm just gonna focus on the easiest-to-prove immorality in the bible: sexism.

first, see my posts from 11:47, 11:49 and 11:53 on november 9th wherein i gave the merriam webster definition of "sexism" and then quoted a bunch of sexist verses. it is there that you'll see some of the verses CLEARLY and REPEATEDLY placing women below men in the god's prescribed social hierarchy. you can't just waive those away by quoting verses extolling women or saying god's just prescribing "different" roles. while it's true His prescribed roles are different - like an employer's role is different than an employee's.

are you invoking the "separate but equal" apology?

for instance, my dog is great! he's spunky and sweet. he's energetic and playful, when it's appropriate, and he doesn't jump up and slobber all over guests. he loves his walks, loves me and doesn't bark - again, except when appropriate. he's extremely loyal, aims to please, and is affectionate. his fur is soft and silky, and his muscles are supple and powerful.

so, my dog is praiseworthy, but he's NOT my equal. see?

there are clearly biological differences (vive la difference!) btwn men and women, BUT they should, in an enlightened world, be granted equal rights. they should be permitted equal access to all parts of the temple/church/mosque.

Definition of SEXISM (from merriam webster)

1 : prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially : discrimination against women

2 : behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex

in a non-sexist world, you cannot have instructions regarding social roles like:

1tim2:

11Let a woman learn quietly(T) with all submissiveness. 12(U) I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13(V) For Adam was formed first,(W) then Eve; 14and Adam was not deceived, but(X) the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15Yet she will be saved through(Y) childbearing — if they continue in(Z) faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

and

1 cor11:

3But I want you to understand that(E) the head of every man is Christ,(F) the head of a wife[a] is her husband, and(G) the head of Christ is God.

basically, man : christ :: wife : husband

that's SEXIST - not just describing "different" roles, but a LOWER status for women.

peterhuff,

"That is a no-brainer."

Every time that I see this written, I get the impression that the writer is saying, "I did not use my brain to come to my conclusion, therefore you should also not use your brain, and come to the exact same conclusion that I did, exactly as I did".

peterhuff,

"Or some unbelievers that actually have a belief system they pretend to be unaware of,..."

What? You think that I'm pretending?

"...a way of interpreting the world that some unbelievers are ignorant of,..."

What? You think that I'm ignorant?

"...and yet they act as their own gods,..."

What? You think that I act as my own gods?

"...being the authority that just by saying 'it' makes it so."

What? You think that I'm Picard?

"Nothing behind 'it' but nothingness."

Bwa Ha Ha Ha Ha...

[postmodernist poetics expurgated]

Hi Walter,

WALTER: "peter,
just curious: has rco convinced you

1) the bible prohibited israelites from owning foreign slaves against their will?

2) the bible prescribes equal treatment/rights for women?

3) numbers 5:11- does not describe an abortion for a pregnant adulteress?"

------------------------

No Walter, RCofield has not convinced me, just strengthen my conviction and given some new insight.

If you recall from way back when, I had already stated to you that you had a wrong interpretation of slavery. I think at the time I compared some passages of slavery in the Bible as like what we would term an employee/employer contractual agreement today.

Of course the website I supplied you with, which I'm not sure if you read or not, but it certainly does not appear that you did any more than a cursory reading at best, produced an even better understanding of God's goodness in the provision for fallen humanity.

You came heavily at it with your own bias, unable to put it aside to evaluate the truth of what it was presenting.

He took a people for Himself to make Himself known to the world, instructed and taught them, and yet they continued to reject and rebel against His good nature, just like you do.

As I mentioned before, when you read the OT (as well as the NT) you see God's concern for the downtrodden, the poor, the humble, the helpless, the oppressed.

Slavery was a way of helping those who could not help themselves.

At that time I also expressed to you the spiritual lessons involved in slavery that God taught from the examples of the OT. Those without Christ are in slavery to a system of thought and a fallen nature that is opposed to freedom, true freedom.

But it was mans fallen nature and believed independence in that he chose his own 'good,' in which evil was first realize. You see Walter, once you go against the goodness of God you set yourself up for all kinds of failure and depraved thoughts and actions.

How you can ever justify abortion is beyond me Walter. That is a no-brainer.

I also see God's concern for all peoples, rich, poor, male, female, slave or free. The difference between men and women is a difference in design and roles, not a difference in value. God made woman as the child bearer, He made man as the stronger physically and also the head of the family unit. Without unity that comes from the head of the family there is division. You know the saying that you cannot serve to masters. It applies to a godly family unit as well. There is a hierarchy that God has put in place, not only in a family unit, but also in a working and social/cultural setting.

Man/woman is is just the way He made us to be - not sexist - of equal value but designed to function differently.

In marriage we become one (united physically and mentally) with each other (one accord) and yet the wife is told to submit to the husband and the husband is told to love the wife and give himself for her, just as Christ gave Himself for the church.

RCofield,

"Do you....uh...well...um, you know...I don't want to be too crass here...but I think you know what I mean...when you ogle...er...I mean "appreciate" a Cezanne still life or a Turner landscape?"

Are you trying to ask me if I choke the chicken, spank the monkey, slap the sausage, or flog the log, at the NGA?

No.

"Well, now, aren't you quite the noble savage?"

I don't consider that at all noble, or savage, for that matter.

Hi PSolus (the sniper concealed by his mind in nothingness),

PSO: "You will never be able to do that, any more than you will be able to convince a true believer that his magical book of magical sayings is simply a work of fiction."

Or some unbelievers that actually have a belief system they pretend to be unaware of, a way of interpreting the world that some unbelievers are ignorant of, and yet they act as their own gods, being the authority that just by saying 'it' makes it so. Nothing behind 'it' but nothingness.

We are the hollow men We are the stuffed men Leaning together Headpiece filled with straw. Alas! Our dried voices, when We whisper together Are quiet and meaningless As wind in dry grass Or rats' feet over broken glass In our dry cellar

Shape without form, shade without colour, Paralysed force, gesture without motion -T.S. Elliot, The Hollow Men

PEREGRINE,

First, "ogling" is such an ugly word; I prefer "appreciate", as I often also appreciate a Cezanne still life, or a Turner landscape.

Do you....uh...well...um, you know...I don't want to be too crass here...but I think you know what I mean...when you ogle...er...I mean "appreciate" a Cezanne still life or a Turner landscape?

Second, those "other men's daughters" have to pay the rent and utilities, and buy food, just like the rest of us.

I am not too proud to help them earn a living.

Well, now, aren't you quite the noble savage?

RCofield,

"Quite the righteous judgment,..."

Not a "righteous judgment", simply an observation; your comment, however, more closely resembles the definition of "righteous judgment".

"...coming from someone who holds women in such high regard that he admittedly frequents the local "gentleman's" club for the express purpose of ogling other men's daughters."

First, "ogling" is such an ugly word; I prefer "appreciate", as I often also appreciate a Cezanne still life, or a Turner landscape.

Second, those "other men's daughters" have to pay the rent and utilities, and buy food, just like the rest of us.

I am not too proud to help them earn a living.

Third, I hold "other men's daughters" in such high regard that I pay one to do my taxes, I paid one to help me land a contract, I paid one to clean my teeth and replace those old mercury fillings with the new ceramic ones, I paid one to check my eyes and fit me for contacts, I pay a different one almost every day to ring up and bag my groceries, I pay one occasionally to prepare and/or serve my food, in fact, I even paid one once to check my prostate; none of them appeared to mind providing services to me for money (well, maybe except for that last one).

PEREGRINE,

Yeah, it's kind of like the guy telling the cops what a "great lady" his wife is as they arrest him for spousal abuse.--PSOLUS

Quite the righteous judgment, coming from someone who holds women in such high regard that he admittedly frequents the local "gentleman's" club for the express purpose of ogling other men's daughters.

RCofield,

"Yet you acknowledge (only because I have pointed out a few of them to you) that there are passages that "extol" women. Given that "extol" means to "praise highly, glorify, or exalt," you are acknowledging that the bible glorifies and exalts women."

Yeah, it's kind of like the guy telling the cops what a "great lady" his wife is as they arrest him for spousal abuse.

WALTER,

for instance, the bible CLEARLY, REPEATEDLY says "men are above women". instead of accepting that, and working with it, you search for a quote extolling women. congrats...hope that works for ya.--WALTER

So...let's analyze that statement.

First, you contend that the bible contains passages that are "sexist," which you apparently interpret as somehow placing men "above" women.

Yet you acknowledge (only because I have pointed out a few of them to you) that there are passages that "extol" women. Given that "extol" means to "praise highly, glorify, or exalt," you are acknowledging that the bible glorifies and exalts women.

So...if some passages seem to value women very highly...and some passages seem to "devalue" women (in your not-so-humble opinion)...has it ever occurred to you that you may be interpreting the so-called "sexist" passages incorrectly?

Of course not. How silly of me to even suggest that a rabid anti-theist might be wrongly interpreting the Word of God.

And you still have not responded to my last series of posts on the other thread here:

http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/jonathan_merritt/2010/11/voting_values_doesnt_mean_endorsing_a_party.html

So what's it gonna be, Walter? Are you going to debate me or just snipe and whine from the sidelines?

Hi Walter,

I will be with you later tonight or tomorrow. I'm working from 7-11PM.

PETERHUFF,

Walter posted to you:

just curious: has rco convinced you

1) the bible prohibited israelites from owning foreign slaves against their will?

2) the bible prescribes equal treatment/rights for women?

3) numbers 5:11- does not describe an abortion for a pregnant adulteress?

As Walter is being misleading (must be his highly "evolved" sense of morality), let me frame the above in the actual terms that he is arguing:

Walter contends that:

1) The bible both condones and advocates the forcing of individuals into slavery against their will.

2) The bible discriminates against women and is therefore sexist because it prescribes distinct roles for men and women.

3) God is pro-abortion

peter,
just curious: has rco convinced you

1) the bible prohibited israelites from owning foreign slaves against their will?

2) the bible prescribes equal treatment/rights for women?

3) numbers 5:11- does not describe an abortion for a pregnant adulteress?

walter-in-fallschurch,

Have you ever attempted to convince an 8-year-old boy that his little sister does not have cooties?

You will never be able to do that, any more than you will be able to convince a true believer that his magical book of magical sayings is simply a work of fiction.

no, rco, i'm discouraged that you can't read the bible w/o trying to "correct" for its old-fashioned immorality.

for instance, the bible CLEARLY, REPEATEDLY says "men are above women". instead of accepting that, and working with it, you search for a quote extolling women. congrats...hope that works for ya.

there's no point. you are incapable of accepting the "difficult verses" as they are.

like i said, there's no point in discussing anything with you, except maybe the weather - but you'd probably be in denial about that too.
----------------------------

Amarnath,
americans, and bible believers, are homophobic because their bible tells them so.... they're just being good christians (but bad people).