New political equation for religious right

Hi GoldenEagle,

Here is one of those cut and pastes I was talking about.

Yes, with all of this in mind, we understand why, in a male dominated patriarchal culture, where the strength of man alone allowed for the very existence of society, where prowess in the arts of war and combat was the central cultural virtue, and necessarily so, that it would have been a bridge too far, for the people to digest the idea that God is both Father and Mother.

Here is the place were it becomes essential to apply the Master’s word, “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.” (John 16:12).

And so with the exclusive patriarchal context, the Master used the term Father exclusively. It didn’t mean that God is Father only. It means only that God is certainly Father. It means that this particular truth, spoken to directly in Genesis, that God is Mother too, if promulgated at that time, would be tantamount to asking the people as a whole, to make a turn that the wheel base of practically no in the popular culture could accommodate...This is actually the higher echelon interpretation of the scripture in Exodus, wherein the Father/Mother God concept is embedded in one of the Ten Commandments:Exodus 20:12 - “Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.”

You see in this scripture (Exodus 20:12) the nudging of the people in the direction of the truth.

Wow, from THIS passage (Ex. 20:12) you gleam all this!

In every reference to God that I am aware of in both testaments, regardless of whether that be Father, Son, or Holy Spirit, there is never a reference to God in the feminine gender. You take a reference for His creatures and apply it to Him. Are you trying to be politically correct? There are three Persons whom we call God. Why would He not set the record straight from the beginning?

What you are doing is reading things into the text what the text does not express.

And you take a passage in John 16 that implies nothing about Father/Mother and read your interpretation into it, that this is what Jesus is meaning by what is not expressed at that time. Come on.

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?
++++++++++++++++++

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.

Here we see the Master saying, that the belief that he is Lord (and inherent in that Lordship, the belief in his capacity to deliver eternal salvation) is not enough. To enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, one must DO the Will of God. One must incorporate the Will of God into one’s life, and express the Will of God in one’s thoughts, feelings, decisions, choices, and behavior. - GE

That is not possible unless ones life is changed by the Savior.

You talk of the will of God and yet Jesus says when asked about doing the works God requires, "The work of God is this: to believe in the One He has sent." (John 6:29)

He also said, "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws Him and I WILL raise him up at the last day." (John 6:44)

And to the large crowds following Him He said to count the cost of following Him, denying themselves and take up their cross.

And yet the yoke He gives is easy and the burden is light (Matthew 11:28-30)

It is the work of the Spirit we need in our hearts, the change of natures from a hard and callous heart to a broken and humble heart that is ready to do His will.

If we have not received that then we labor in vain (Psalm 127:1).

Hi GoldenEagles,

It is a waste of time to argue context in these situations. To make a coherent argument, you need to explain why a particular principle, stated by the Master, is not applicable to the situation in which I am using it.

I have GoldenEagles. You just don't like my answer. So the ball is now in your court. I've answered many of your questions and I have asked you to answer the one that I addressed to you before (which you ignored) on whether you are performing these greater miracles, or even the ones common to Jesus, like raising the dead, or healing the sick?

If not, then consider this; either your theology is not as astute as you think it is and you don't have as much faith as you criticize the rest of the church for not having, or, these miracles were a sign of the Apostles given by Jesus to confirm that they were from God for the spreading of the Gospel.

And consider this; the greater miracles are still happening today, for they are of eternal consequence, the saving of souls.

Hi GoldenEagles,

Peterhuff, I see that you are struggling with the question as to how the promise made by the Master Jesus Christ in John 14:12 might apply to you. I see that you are looking at various alternatives, sort of thinking out loud on this question.

I was looking at some of the alternatives for your benefit. I wanted to eliminate the possibilities so that if you had objections you could contend with my points. You haven't done that.

John Calvin treats it as though Jesus is speaking to the apostles/disciples.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom35.iv.ii.html

John Gill does the same in his Expository.

http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/john-14-12.html

Do you want me to go on?

First you have to tell me why you feel that this passage is not addressing the disciples/apostles of the first century. Then you need to explain what you think these 'greater' miracles are. Then you need to explain why the church/body, throughout the ages has not been doing what Jesus said that they would do. Finally you have to explain how the words of the Savior can be thwarted? Yes, how can the plans of the Sovereign Lord be thwarted?

Good luck!

You still have not answered my other question. Are you performing these greater miracles, or even the ones that Jesus was doing, like raising the dead, healing the sick, lensing the leapers? If so how come no one has heard of it? Where in history, after the first century, do you find the church or even members of the body doing such miracles that the Lord said they WOULD or SHALL do?

peterhuff says, “Wow, you really have a cut and paste theology. You take passages out of context and try to fit them to your ideas of God that cannot be justified when read in context.”

Before you put a lot of time and energy in trying to prove this point, I would ask you to keep in mind, that it is often the case, that both God our Father, through his Old Testament Prophets, and the Master Jesus Christ used particular situations to bring forth principles that had wide application outside of the particular context in which you find them articulated.

For example, if the Master observes that on Mary’s Stove, that water boils at 212 degrees F, that does not mean that water boils at that temperature only on Mary’s Stove. Water will boil on every stove across this entire planet, at that temperature, if there is enough heat applied under the pan.

It is a waste of time to argue context in these situations. To make a coherent argument, you need to explain why a particular principle, stated by the Master, is not applicable to the situation in which I am using it.

More on the Belief Structure Referred to in John 14:12

Rcofield says, “I think it is quite clear that Christ's use of the term “he that believeth on me” was meant to convey the idea of belief unto eternal salvation.”

That is certainly one of the components of the belief structure implied in John 14:12. But it doesn't represent the whole belief structure. Take this statement for example:

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.”

Here we see the Master saying, that the belief that he is Lord (and inherent in that Lordship, the belief in his capacity to deliver eternal salvation) is not enough. To enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, one must DO the Will of God. One must incorporate the Will of God into one’s life, and express the Will of God in one’s thoughts, feelings, decisions, choices, and behavior.

This refers to a multiplicity of requirements that must be met to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

The Master Jesus made every effort to delineate the most important of these requirements (regarding obedience to the Will of God) setting them before his disciples as commandments. For example:

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

Here we see that the Master Jesus has given many commandments. Every elucidation of a point of God’s Will, as an expression of divine principle, which the Master set forth, is to be considered a commandant, as to the individual’s assimilation of that principle.

Therefore, the question is, what did the Master Jesus Christ command? One can search the gospels, and make out a list. Many have already done that. This list of commandments must also be incorporated into the belief structure that is referred to in John 14:12. That list could begin here:

Matthew 5:44 - But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

I think it would be correct to say that the outer shell, as it were, of this belief structure, would be, as you described, Jesus Christ as a Son of God, given all-power by the Father, unto the salvation of souls on earth. Inside that shell, would be all of the requirements that the soul must fufill, for the Master to apply the power of eternal salvation unto that soul.

To believe in the Master Jesus Christ, is to believe in the whole construct. Not just a piece of it, but the whole of it. This is the belief structure the Master referred to in John 14:12.

“He that believeth on me.” In other words, “He that believeth in my relationship to God, my authority, my mission, my teaching, my admonishments, my commandments, and my promises.” All of that is incorporated into the “me” to which the Master Jesus referred.

Hi GoldenEagles,

Wow, you really have a cut and paste theology. You take passages out of context and try to fit them to your ideas of God that cannot be justified when read in context.

More to follow.

God as Father and Mother -
Additional Observations - Part 4

Concerning this ongoing effort of God our Father and Mother to “nudge” the minds of their fallen children to accept more of the truth, we see that effort expressed in the very structure of our society, in terms of the way God designed the family unit. Here, the desire of God is clearly expressed, for the mind of man to understand this principle, that NOTHING happens without woman, that NOTHING happens without Mother.

This is because the Father/Mother God partnership is expressed in every part of the creation. Our Heavenly Father, does nothing without our Heavenly Mother. They are a team. Our Heavenly Mother, does nothing without our Heavenly Father, again they are a team. And again, their love for one another, this infinite and ever expanding conflagration of love, it is the central fountain from which the creation is given the attribute of love itself.

Every bit of (true) love is a divine energy. It is either dipped from the infinite river of love that flows between our Heavenly Father and our Heavenly Mother, or from the infinite river of love that flows between our Heavenly Mother and our Heavenly Father, or from the infinite river of love that flows between our Heavenly Father and our Heavenly Mother to their children.

This also represents a very interesting trinity.

The inability of the people, to this point, to anchor the balanced geometry of true love, primarily because of the absence of the Mother element, points to one of the deficiencies in the belief structure that is required to fulfill the Master’s promise recorded in John 14:12.

It is by the Power of Divine Love that the Master Jesus Christ performed all of his works. For a disciple of Christ to perform the works that he did (fulfilling the promise of John 14:12) that disciple must enter the same flow of Divine Love. (“...that where I am, there ye may be also - John 14:3) Of course, this is impossible without the assistance of the Master. No one can do this without the sponsorship of the Master Jesus Christ. However, if the individual cannot anchor the truth about the reality of God as Mother, as well as Father, the disciple cannot enter the necessary love flow that will allow for these works to be accomplished.

No matter how much the Master Jesus Christ would want to help the disciple fulfill the promise of John 14:12, there is nothing he can do until the disciple becomes willing to accept the proper belief structure within the mind.

The proper belief structure is required for the proper flow of (works-related) power. We see this principle illustrated in Thomas Edison's multi-year quest to find just the right chemical structure for the filament of the incandescent lamp, one that would not instantly burn out when power was applied, and one that would stay lit for a long period of time.

God as Father and Mother -
Additional Observations - Part 3

You can do a Google search on the “Hard Sayings of Jesus” to help illustrate this point more clearly. What were considered the “Hard Sayings” of the Master two-thousand years ago, are still considered hard sayings by many today. That is because they draw individuals into a turn radius that their wheel base is not quite able to accommodate.

And of course, the Master’s use of parables, when he spoke to the public, was another way to nudge the people into a turn, without demanding that they make the whole turn, right there on the spot.

And so, when it comes to resolving the apparent contradiction between the Word of God in Genesis, and the use of the term “Father” nearly exclusively by the Master Jesus Christ, we have come to our second point of resolution.

Yes, with all of this in mind, we understand why, in a male dominated patriarchal culture, where the strength of man alone allowed for the very existence of society, where prowess in the arts of war and combat was the central cultural virtue, and necessarily so, that it would have been a bridge too far, for the people to digest the idea that God is both Father and Mother.

Here is the place were it becomes essential to apply the Master’s word, “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.” (John 16:12).

And so with the exclusive patriarchal context, the Master used the term Father exclusively. It didn’t mean that God is Father only. It means only that God is certainly Father. It means that this particular truth, spoken to directly in Genesis, that God is Mother too, if promulgated at that time, would be tantamount to asking the people as a whole, to make a turn that the wheel base of practically no in the popular culture could accommodate. This important facet of the true identity of God had to be held over to a later time for the greater public emphasis which it deserved, and too which the people would be more open, as more would have made the necessary turns in the mean time.

This is actually the higher echelon interpretation of the scripture in Exodus, wherein the Father/Mother God concept is embedded in one of the Ten Commandments:

Exodus 20:12 - “Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.”

You see in this scripture (Exodus 20:12) the nudging of the people in the direction of the truth.

God as Father and Mother -
Additional Observations - Part 2

The first point of resolution would have to be the fact that God our Father and Mother will send Their messengers into a culture with a message which They have determined to be one that their children will be able to assimilate. What Mother will force a beef steak into the mouth of a new born child? Of course, the message will always push the envelope in certain respects, but overall, it must be conservative enough, in terms of existing moral tradition, for the people to be able to gravitate to it.

This problem, as to what the people are able to receive, beyond which they will spit it out, is framed by the important concept, which says, that the ways of man, such as they are, are not the ways of God.

Isaiah 55:8 - “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.”

The Goal of God our Father and Mother, in sending Their messengers into the earth is to guide the people into an understanding of Their ways. But as you know, a large supertanker (filled with the oil of rebellion) cannot be turned on a dime. It is a slow process. When you try to force someone into a turn radius that their wheels won’t accommodate, you find they will hit the curb.

John 6:66 - “From that [day] many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.”

God our Father and Mother have to strike the right balance, in giving a message, in a given culture and time, that will accommodate the turn radius of those who are able to make the turn, while not being overly aggressive in this regard, in the alienation of too many people. And so, the Master Jesus Christ was cognizant of this problem. And he consciously withheld information from his disciples, as the following scripture indicates:

John 6:12 - “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.”

And one cannot bypass the story of Saint Stephen in coming to a solid understanding of this problem, that some people are ready to have their ship turned a bit more in the direction of God, and there will be others who are not ready at all, and thus, the word delivered must strike a balance, culture wide, between the degree of turn which God our Father and Mother desires for their children to make, and the capacity of the people to make that turn.

God as Father and Mother - Additional Observations - Part 1

In regards to the Father/Mother God principle, I see you were not able to find any fault with my extrapolation of this principle from the WORD OF GOD in Genesis.

For truly, there is no principle more fundamental to the teachings of the entire Bible, indeed, it is the foundation on which the whole rests, 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.

If a mind can wiggle out of that, there is no principle in scripture that is immutable. It would all be subject to the massaging of the dark and ignorant intellect of man in terms of what he wants to be true, not in terms of what is actually true.

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.” ???

And moreover, “Just so everybody will be the more confused, before I throw her in the trash, let me give her the most important responsibility on the planet, that to bring in incoming souls. Let me give her the most important responsibility on the planet, that of the raising up of the young. Let me give her the most important responsibility on the planet, in the formation of the psychological foundation for adulthood.”

This is, of course, implausible.

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. All the radiant threads of common sense and intellectual honesty form into the structure of the truth in this regard, that God is both Father and Mother.

Now, I understand the use of the predominant term “Father” by the Master Jesus. And I understand why you point to that as an apparent contradicting factor. But, this apparent contradiction cannot be used to cancel out the Word of God in Genesis. Neither can the contradiction be used to impugn the authority of the Master.

The contradiction must be resolved in truth.

A REMINDER TO ALL

This thread may time out at any moment now. It has already run longer than is usual. When it expires, let's go here:

http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/Amarnath_Amarasingam/2010/11/this_time_politicians_need_to_be_on_the_right_side_of_history.html

GOLDENEAGLES,

The idea that God is only “father” is a totally unnatural idea, imposed upon theological doctrine by fallen angels for the purpose of robbing the children of God of a balanced sense of their own divine identity.--GE

Is. 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

John 14:2 In my Father’s house are many rooms. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you?

Mt. 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.

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 is the idea of “soul psychology,” and “reincarnation,” and “demonology.” These are ideas that you have advanced in a number of your posts.

Are you a practitioner of New Age ideology?

GOLDENEAGLES,

False pastors are like unto liberal judges in this regard, who advance interpretations which make provisions of the Constitution into a dead letter, as far as original intent is concerned.

Indeed, in the same manner that we see liberal judges gut the original meaning of the Constitution, we see the false pastors gut the original meaning of the Teachings of Christ.--GE

Indeed.

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?

When we do this, scripture then becomes the best interpreter of scripture, and the original intent of God's Word shines through, does it not?

GOLDENEAGLES,

Part 1 of 3

Do you believe that it was the intent of the Master Jesus Christ, for the people to get a sense of what he was talking about, that they had to become Biblical Scholars?--GE

On the face of it, this seems like quite a barrier for the average person. If the entryway into heaven depends on the person becoming a biblical scholar, the average person could not possibly hope to comprehend this teaching, and could never hope to pass through the gates.--GE

But then again, there are elements of the Master’s Teaching that are simple and straightforward, for example, nearly everything he said in the Sermon on the Mount. Love your neighbor as yourself for example, does not require reference to any other statement in the entire bible to understand. It only requires obedience.--GE

Therefore, your assertion would not apply to some points, because they are simple to understand, and no one would be allowed to argue before the judgment seat, that they cannot be held accountable for breaking the law, because they did not have time to become a Biblical Scholar on those points.--GE

2 Tim. 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

GOLDENEAGLES,

Part 2 of 2

You further state:

Because of this, your assertion could not therefore be elevated to the status of a generally applicable rule. Though it may be valid in some instances, when the subject matter is deep, and the meaning not readily apparent.--GE

For the sake of discussion, in this particular instance, I will grant you the point that the interpretation of John 14:12 may be influenced by the content of other statements made by the Master, and perhaps, to a degree, from the teachings of the Old Testament.--GE

When the Master made this promise, he had within his own mind, a certain structure of meaning and truth related to these words" "he that believeth on me."--GE

John 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

John 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life:

John 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

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:

John 12:46 I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness.

GOLDENEAGLES

Part 3 of 3

Whatever that meant to the Master, this would be the criteria by which the promise would be fulfilled. If his disciples could achieve the level of belief that the Master was referring to, then the promise would be fulfilled. This is what I am pointing to when I said, "the belief structure referred to by the Master." It is the Master's criteria by which the promise is to be fulfilled.--GE

Additionally, it would probably be helpful if you would indicate exactly what “greater works than these” you think Christ meant in this passage. 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?”

Typo correction: Every spark of true love between male and female, that we are blessed to experience on earth, is a spark of love taken from the central fires of love that God our Father has for God our Mother. Every true heart knows this to be a fact.

Typo correction: Just as it is on earth, a sign of psychological sickness to deny the existence of your worldly mother, so too in heaven, is it a sign of spiritual sickness to deny the existence of your Heavenly Mother.

The Biblical Basis for Seeing God
Accurately as both Father and Mother

There are several places in scripture where the true nature of God, as both Father and Mother is indicated. For example:

Genesis 1

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over ... every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Genesis 5

1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

Here we see that God our Father and Mother created mankind in Their own image and likeness. Just as God is both Father and Mother, mankind was created in that likeness, in male/female pairs, once joined together, no man was to break asunder.

Obviously, it is the Will of God for every soul born on earth, to have permanently impressed on the soul psychology, that parents come in twos, male and female.

The idea that God is only “father” is a totally unnatural idea, imposed upon theological doctrine by fallen angels for the purpose of robbing the children of God of a balanced sense of their own divine identity.

A substantial reason that people have do not have their belief structure anywhere near correct, when it comes to what is necessary to do the works that Jesus Christ did, is this missing one-half of the piece of truth. The truth is like unto one whole pie. You need both halves of the pie if your stomach is to properly filled. What person can walk on only one leg? What person can hear properly with only one ear? What person can see properly with only one eye? Leaving out half of the equation puts the individual at a disadvantage every time. The moreso in the domain of spiritual truth. The fallen angels know this, that is why they systematically indoctrinated the Children of God to deny the existence of their own Divine Mother. Very pathological we must all agree. And the demons stand by to lean on the feeling world of any individual who directs their attention in this direction with their own Hatred of the Divine Mother.

If your feeling world has within it, feelings of disdain and mockery when you contemplate this truth, that God is both Father and Mother, then you know the origin of those feelings. Those feelings are certainly not natural to the soul.

Just on earth, as it is a sign of psychological sickness to deny the existence of your worldly mother, so too in heaven, is it a sign of spiritual sickness to deny the existence of your Heavenly Mother.

Every spark of true love between male and female, that we are blessed to experience on earth, is a spark of love taken from the central fires of love that God our Father has for our God our Mother. Every true heart knows this to be a fact.

Peterhuff, I see that you are struggling with the question as to how the promise made by the Master Jesus Christ in John 14:12 might apply to you. I see that you are looking at various alternatives, sort of thinking out loud on this question.

The portion of your thought stream which seemed the most coherent to me was in the place where your own common sense tried to take center stage, where you said, “If He is addressing believers throughout the course of human history from His ascension onwards then either His word does not appear to have been kept, or there are no believers who have the faith to believe [and] if He was and is addressing us directly along with the first century believers then it appears we have either proved unfaith[ful], sin has kept us from being the empty vessel used by the Master, we don’t have enough faith ...”

I see some honesty and accountability shining through in these words. Is that basically where you are coming down on this issue?

Hi GoldenEagles,

1) Who in the context of the passage is being addressed? It seems He is addressing the believers in the Upper Room, the band of eleven/twelve (John 13). "My children, I will be with YOU only a little longer." And constantly through these verses and well into the next chapter we see the pronoun 'you' along with the proper names of some of the twelve. Specific disciples ask questions and He replies to them in John 14:5 and 9.

And He says that ANYONE who has faith in Him WILL do what He has been doing and great things than these. If Jesus said it then it is so. It will happen. Do you think that any man can thwart the plan of God? So why is it not happening today if Jesus said it would? Are you doing these things GoldenEagles?

“I tell YOU [the eleven/twelve?] the truth, anyone who has faith in Me WILL DO what I have been doing.”

Is the 'anyone' referring to the eleven specifically, the disciples at that time or anyone generally?

Is He not able to do exceedingly more than we could ever ask or hope? (Eph. 3:20) Is He not the sovereign Lord?

So it is very likely that He is addressing these first century believers.

2) If He is addressing believers throughout the course of human history from His ascension onwards then either His word does not appear to have been kept, or there are no believers who have the faith to believe. When have you heard of people doing the things that Jesus did and even greater things? Not since the apostolic age and first century believers.

In my mind, the Word of Faith preachers are ruled out, even as we see them proclaim their miracle workings on TV. If they are such great miracle workers then why don’t we see them going into hospital wards and healing everyone in sight? Or why do some of them wear glasses?

No, God had in mind a purpose for signs and wonders, and they were used to spread the message of salvation in Jesus Christ throughout the known world of that time. But we still have His word, His true everlasting word that the apostle Peter said,

“And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.” (2 Peter 1:19)

We, as Christians hold out the word of life. That was the hope back then (Phil. 2:16) as it is still the hope today (Romans 10:17; Matthew 28).

So if He was and is addressing us directly along with the first century believers then it appears we have either proved unfaith, sin has kept us from being the empty vessel used by the Master, we don’t have enough faith, or Jesus was addressing the disciples of that time.

Hi GoldenEagle,

PART 2
3) It’s possible that the greater miracles are those of eternal consequence rather than just physical miracles. But then what of the other promise that anyone who has faith in Him will do what He has done? It doesn’t add up that two thousand years and not much evidence of anything of similar proportions.

4) This ties in with the first point. We see over and over again the apostles performing miraculous signs and wonders as the gospel spreads from Jerusalem, through Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.
We see Paul describing the gifts and the ‘most excellent way’ of love. “Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, THEY WILL CEASE; where there are tongues, THEY WILL BE STILL; where there is knowledge, IT WILL PASS AWAY. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears…..And NOW these three REMAIN: faith hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.” (1 Corinthians 13:8-10, 13) But to base signs and wonders ceasing all on one verse is pushing it.

But when you put it all together we see the miracles and wondrous signs coming from these first century believers. The Book of Acts records many of these occurrences. Acts 2, 3, 5, 10, 12, 14, 16, 19, 20, 27, 28.

I still want to know why you continue to use Father/Mother in reference to God. Where do you see this phraseology in the Bible?

GoldenEagles,

"Biblical interpretation has a lot in common with Constitutional interpretation, where the principle of original intent is the decisive factor,..."

Do you believe that you know the original intent of all of the men who wrote the various words that are currently included in what you call your bible?

p.s. Both false pastors, and liberal judges proclaim allegiance to their respective bodies of law. But they are both like a worm in the apple, munching away in their uniquely mindless manner, destroying the very meat of the law they proclaim to honor and which they are charged to protect.

Biblical / Constitutional Interpretation

Biblical interpretation has a lot in common with Constitutional interpretation, where the principle of original intent is the decisive factor, and where we see the forces of darkness playing upon the mind of man, to tempt him to abandon original intent in favor of spurious interpretations that better serve the needs of, the agenda of, the pride-bound ego in the current moment.

False pastors are like unto liberal judges in this regard, who advance interpretations which make provisions of the Constitution into a dead letter, as far as original intent is concerned.

Indeed, in the same manner that we see liberal judges gut the original meaning of the Constitution, we see the false pastors gut the original meaning of the Teachings of Christ.

And yes, they both have their followings.

peterhuff says, “In 'this instance,' I do not believe [that the promise stated in John 14:12 applies] to us directly, but to the first century Christians.

I understand that you are expressing a belief structure that has a place inside of your mind.

However, I would point out, that if this belief structure represented the TRUTH (in your mind), it would be connected to a series of equally truthful observations regarding the Master’s belief, that the fulfillment of his promise, in centuries two through twenty-one, would in some way harm the fulfilment of his goal, to bring all the people of the earth into a recognition of the value of his teaching.

I would ask you to please list these reasons.

For myself, I don’t believe you could come up with one plausible statement that would explain why the Master might believe that the fulfillment of his promise in centuries two through twenty-one, would damage in any way the fulfilment of his goal, to bring all the people of the earth into a recognition of the value of his teaching.

In fact, through the very lens of common sense, we see that the fulfillment of the promise (stated in John 14:12) in centuries two through twenty-one, would have worked in a mighty manner, to fulfill that goal, and more, bringing in fact, the end result for which the Master himself taught us to pray, “Thy Kingdom Come, Thy Will be Done, on Earth, as it is in heaven.”

peterhuff says, “In 'this instance,' I do not believe they apply to us directly, but to the first century Christians. Yes, Jesus is the final authority in all matters of faith, for we are followers of Him. His words are living and they are true.”

That is sort of like wanting to have it both ways.

Where does the Master Jesus Christ state that his promises have a time limit?

Where does the Master Jesus Christ state that after a certain period of time, we can feel free to ignore his words?

Thanks PSolus!

In 'this instance,' I do not believe they apply to us directly, but to the first century Christians. Yes, Jesus is the final authority in all matters of faith, for we are followers of Him. His words are living and they are true.

If you want we can get into these and other possible meanings and attempt to eliminate those that do not fit the bill, but if you want an overview of my interpretation on this passage then follow the link provided. If you want me to go into more detail then we can examine each of these points, or any others you wish to bring up.

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also" (John 14:12). The "works" of which Christ here spake were His miraculous works, the same as those mentioned in the two preceding verses, works to which He appealed as proofs of His Divine person and mission. The one to whom Christ promised this was "He that believeth on me." Some have understood this to refer to all the genuine followers of Christ. But this is manifestly wrong, for there is no Christian on earth today who can do the miracles which Christ did—cleanse the leper, give sight to the blind, raise the dead. To meet this difficulty it has been replied, This is due to a deficiency in the Christian’s faith. But, this is simply a begging of the question. Our Lord did not say, "He that believeth on me may do the works that I do, but shall do!" But of whom, then, was Christ speaking? - A.W. Pink

Here is the link to the full context. Note the passage directly preceding this one.

http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/John/john_49.htm

That did not work well. Let me try that again.

Yes Jesus is the final authority in all matters of faith, for we are followers of Him. His words are living and they are true.

If not, why not? - GE

There are a few ways of looking at this passage.
1) He is directly addressing the believers that are with Him here.
2) He is addressing all believers.
3) The 'greater miracles' are the saving of souls through the Gospel message. They reach beyond the physical to the eternal, hence they are greater for they last forever.
4) That the miracles of healing and prophesy ceases after the apostolic age, as expounded upon in 1 Corinthians 13, but love continues.

peterhuff,

Verily, the HTML Master demands that you remember to end your blockquotes, or he/she/it shall smite you with evil formatting.

Hi GoldenEagles,

It is my belief that the promise of the Master Jesus Christ, recorded in John 14:12, is the “ultimate and final authority in all matters of faith and practice for Christians." - GE

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."

Rcofield and PeterHuff, do you believe the words of the Master Jesus Christ in this instance represents the "ultimate and final authority in all matters of faith and practice for Christians." ??? - GE

In 'this instance,' I do not believe they apply to us directly, but to the first century Christians. Yes, Jesus is the final authority in all matters of faith, for we are followers of Him. His words are living and they are true.

If not, why not? - GE

There are a various ways of looking at this passage.
1) He is directly addressing the believers that are with Him here.
2) He is addressing all believers.
3) He is addressing all believers, but specifically those with Him.
3) The 'greater miracles' are the saving of souls through the Gospel message. They reach beyond the physical to the eternal, hence they are greater for they last forever.
4) That the miracles of healing and prophesy ceases after the apostolic age, as expounded upon in 1 Corinthians 13, but love continues.

If you want we can get into these and other possible meanings and attempt to eliminate those that do not fit the bill, but if you want an overview of my interpretation on this passage then follow the link provided. If you want me to go into more detail then we can examine each of these points, or any others you wish to bring up.

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also" (John 14:12). The "works" of which Christ here spake were His miraculous works, the same as those mentioned in the two preceding verses, works to which He appealed as proofs of His Divine person and mission. The one to whom Christ promised this was "He that believeth on me." Some have understood this to refer to all the genuine followers of Christ. But this is manifestly wrong, for there is no Christian on earth today who can do the miracles which Christ did—cleanse the leper, give sight to the blind, raise the dead. To meet this difficulty it has been replied, This is due to a deficiency in the Christian’s faith. But, this is simply a begging of the question. Our Lord did not say, "He that believeth on me may do the works that I do, but shall do!" But of whom, then, was Christ speaking? - A.W. Pink

Here is the link to the full context. Note the passage directly preceding this one.

http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/John/john_49.htm

Re: The Belief Structure Referred to by the Master

RCofield says, “I would need further clarification from you on that which you term “the belief structure referred to by the Master” in the aforementioned verse before I can attempt to answer your question.”

Before explaining this, let me first apply your principle of Biblical Scholarship to set the appropriate context:

THE WORD OF GOD: "While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him." (Matthew17:5)

THE WORD OF THE MASTER: "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." (John 14:12)

Regarding this important promise made by the Master Jesus Christ, I asked you, “If you believe these words are worthy of ultimate respect, what in your view, are the implications associated with this glaring FACT (which is like the proverbial 800lb gorilla perched comfortably in the sanctuary of every Christian church on the planet) that there is NO evidence in the Christian communities on this planet today, that there is a single "believer" who has succeeded in achieving the belief structure referred to by the Master, which would enable that individual to fulfill the Master's promise?”

Before you can answer this question, you want to know what I meant by this phrase, “the belief structure referred to by the Master.” Let’s look at the Master’s promise again.

"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." (John 14:12)

When the Master made this promise, he had within his own mind, a certain structure of meaning and truth related to these words" "he that believeth on me." Whatever that meant to the Master, this would be the criteria by which the promise would be fulfilled. If his disciples could achieve the level of belief that the Master was referring to, then the promise would be fulfilled. This is what I am pointing to when I said, "the belief structure referred to by the Master." It is the Master's criteria by which the promise is to be fulfilled.

I look forward to your answer to my question.

Hi GoldenEagles,

peterhuff quotes the Bible, "And God said, Let us make man in Our image and likeness…"

Moreover I see that word "Our" is capitalized. - GE

What could that mean? - GE

I always capitalize a proper noun, noun or pronoun reference to the Person-hood of God (I missed the 'Us.')

What it means, the 'Us' and 'Our,' is that the Triune God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit created man different from the animals with characteristics that God has, like the ability to reason and know Him in a personal way.

On the Subject of Biblical Scholarship

RCofield says, " ... the entire 66 books of the Old and New Testaments are the ultimate and final authority in all matters of faith and practice for Christians .... any single statement or verse taken in isolation from the whole inevitably leads one to contradict and/or disobey some other part or parts of the whole."

Do you believe that it was the intent of the Master Jesus Christ, for the people to get a sense of what he was talking about, that they had to become Biblical Scholars?

On the face of it, this seems like quite a barrier for the average person. If the entryway into heaven depends on the person becoming a biblical scholar, the average person could not possibly hope to comprehend this teaching, and could never hope to pass through the gates.

Was it the Master’s intent to throw up this roadblock? Or was it his intent to clear the way forward?

And yet, the requirement to study to show oneself approved unto the law comes to mind. And moreover, when we see that in some instances, that the Master is really talking about some very deep subjects, I see that this not so far-fetched of an assertion.

But then again, there are elements of the Master’s Teaching that are simple and straightforward, for example, nearly everything he said in the Sermon on the Mount. Love your neighbor as yourself for example, does not require reference to any other statement in the entire bible to understand. It only requires obedience.

Therefore, your assertion would not apply to some points, because they are simple to understand, and no one would be allowed to argue before the judgment seat, that they cannot be held accountable for breaking the law, because they did not have time to become a Biblical Scholar on those points.

Because of this, your assertion could not therefore be elevated to the status of a generally applicable rule. Though it may be valid in some instances, when the subject matter is deep, and the meaning not readily apparent.

For the sake of discussion, in this particular instance, I will grant you the point that the interpretation of John 14:12 may be influenced by the content of other statements made by the Master, and perhaps, to a degree, from the teachings of the Old Testament.

For example, on the plus side, we could bring forward all the scripture that speaks to the authority of the Master’s word. We could bring forward all the scripture that speaks to the works he had accomplished.

On the minus side, we could bring forth, if such exists, all the scripture that would give us a reason to disbelieve a promise made by the Master. We could bring forth all the scripture that would give us a reason to abandon our faith that what the Master said was true.

GOLDENEAGLES,

It is my belief that the promise of the Master Jesus Christ, recorded in John 14:12, is the “ultimate and final authority in all matters of faith and practice for Christians.” 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." Rcofield....do you believe the words of the Master Jesus Christ in this instance represents the "ultimate and final authority in all matters of faith and practice for Christians." ???--G.E.

If not, why not?--G.E.

If you do believe these words are worthy of ultimate respect, what in your view, are the implications associated with this glaring FACT (which is like the proverbial 800lb gorilla perched comfortably in the sanctuary of every Christian church on the planet) that there is NO evidence in the Christian communities on this planet today, that there is a single "believer" who has succeeded in achieving the belief structure referred to by the Master, which would enable that individual to fulfill the Master's promise?--G.E.

Clearly, mankind can oppose God’s Plan in a variety of ways. There are innumerable illustrations that could be brought forward.

You have used the term “soul psychology” a couple of times in your posts. I would be interested to hear exactly what you mean by that term.

GoldenEagles,

Does this make your imaginary father/mother god angry?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40235085/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets/

After all, didn't he/she invent the Internet?

Did he/she also invent Facebook?

RCofield,

"Perhaps you are too easily amused. "

Yeah, that must be it.

GoldenEagles,

"Actually, computers and the Internet have nothing to do with the God-Denying branch of "Science" that Atheists use to deny the existence of God."

Do people actually deny the existence of your imaginary father/mother god on the Internet?

"Computers and the Internet are the product of a very long march of technological development based on the understanding of various natural phenomena and their laws of behavior, all of which God our Father and Mother have provided to us for our use."

So, your imaginary father/mother god invented the Internet?

It wasn't Al Gore?

Are you sure?

"When you look at your computer screen, know that God is absolutely and constantly in control of every electrical process that is ongoing there."

Is he also in control when I download and watch porn?

Does he also watch the porn with me?

Does he also, you know...

"Matter is an aspect of the Body of God, placed into the hands of man to mold as man sees fit into the various kinds of technological tools that he requires."

Like breast implants?

"As man discovers the various magical qualities inherent in the Body of God to which God allows man access, these qualities can be used to bring forth higher and more advanced technologies."

I like your imaginary father/mother god better then RCofield's and peterhuff's imaginary fire and brimstone god.

Actually, computers and the Internet have nothing to do with the God-Denying branch of "Science" that Atheists use to deny the existence of God. Computers and the Internet are the product of a very long march of technological development based on the understanding of various natural phenomena and their laws of behavior, all of which God our Father and Mother have provided to us for our use. When you look at your computer screen, know that God is absolutely and constantly in control of every electrical process that is ongoing there. Matter is an aspect of the Body of God, placed into the hands of man to mold as man sees fit into the various kinds of technological tools that he requires. As man discovers the various magical qualities inherent in the Body of God to which God allows man access, these qualities can be used to bring forth higher and more advanced technologies.

PEREGRINE,

There is nothing more amusing for me than to read a bunch of fundamentalists attempting to debunk science - using computers and the Internet.--Peregrine

PETERHUFF, GOLDENEAGLES, CORNBREAD, PSOLUS,

This thread will probably time out in the next day or two. When it does, let's go here:

http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/Amarnath_Amarasingam/2010/11/this_time_politicians_need_to_be_on_the_right_side_of_history.html

GoldenEagles,

"What could that mean?"

Probably nothing; why do you ask?

US and OUR

peterhuff quotes the Bible, "And God said, Let us make man in Our image and likeness…"

I see in this famous piece of scripture the word "US" and the word "OUR".

Moreover I see that word "Our" is capitalized.

What could that mean?

GoldenEagles, RCofield, peterhuff,

There is nothing more amusing for me than to read a bunch of fundamentalists attempting to debunk science - using computers and the Internet.

GoldenEagles,

"By what mechanism does a hydrogen atom on one side of the universe behave in exactly and precisely the same manner as a hydrogen atom on the other side of the universe?"

How do you know that a hydrogen atom on one side of the universe behaves in exactly and precisely the same manner as a hydrogen atom on the other side of the universe?

"By what mechanism do these two atomic particles separated by unfathomable distances, distances that require hundreds of millions of years for light to travel from one side to other, is the behavior of these two atomic particles maintained in perfect behavioral synchronization?"

How do you know that the behavior of these two atomic particles, separated by unfathomable distances, distances that require hundreds of millions of years for light to travel from one side to other, is maintained in perfect behavioral synchronization?

"What mind is so vast that can hold both in its gaze at the same time, and what will so powerful to make sure the behavior of both is exactly the same, now and for all time to come?"

The demons minds!

"That is God."

No, the demons!

"The average person can see this through the lens of common sense."

But, only if the demons let them!

"The Atheist on the other hand, is like an ant with its eyes plucked out."

Did the demons plucked their eyes out?

GoldenEagles,

"These developments of science will actually help to make the Atheists into a dying breed, which like homosexuals, will become incapable of reproducing themselves."

But, what about the demons?

Can't the demons just make more atheists and homosexuals?

And, the demons being so demonic, can't they just start making homosexual atheists, and atheistic homosexuals?

I feel like an ant with its eyes plucked out!

GOLDENEAGLES,

Thanks for your response. Busy day ahead, so it will probably be sometime tomorrow before I can reply to you further.

CORNBREAD,

Part 1 of 2

As a matter of fact, you did supply a list of theologians to consult back in July and I didn't find it condescending in the least.

That is a far different matter from what we are discussing here. When you asked a theological question I responded with reasoned argument and supported it with specific passages from scripture. Why do you feel no compulsion to do the same with scientific questions I pose? Well, in your own words:

It is not incumbent upon me to read and distill and explain any and all scientific data with which you happen to have a problem. The data you seek, explained far better and more accurately than I ever could, is found in science books and blogs, the names and URLs for some of which I have supplied. Have a meaningful dialogue with them.

You can't make ID or Creationism data-supported scientific theories by making cornbread look like the non-scientist everyone already knows he is.

CORNBREAD,

Part 2 of 2

Why do I accept well-supported scientific, naturalistic explanations even though I don't fully understand them? Because every, single, solitary time that natural phenomena have been investigated in the past, they have been shown to have natural, not supernatural, explanations. Every time -- without exception. I'm going with the odds.

Actually, “every single solitary time that natural phenomena have been investigated in the past” scientists have been forced to point to other “natural phenomena” to explain them. Without an adequate “naturalistic” explanation of “every single solitary” one of those causal “natural phenomena,” scientific inquiry has still failed to explain the first and moving cause of the “natural phenomena” they seek to explain. This renders your above statement hardly more than a statement of faith. Let me demonstrate. You said earlier to Peter Huff, in reference to abiogenesis:

We don't know yet, but you might be surprised how much progress has been made on this question in just the past few years.

As for the “much progress” made in the study of abiogenesis, I do try to stay up to date on the current affairs of that field of study. It seems to me that the entire field of abiogenesis is a mess of contradiction from start to finish. (Sound familiar?) Abiogenesis has a long and laughable history. And why is it such a mess of contradiction? It has a faulty foundational presupposition: That life can be “caused” to “spontaneously generate.” LOL. Get it? If it is “caused” it is not “spontaneous.” And we would still be left with the necessity of explaining the “cause,” which, if we are limited to “naturalistic” explanations of causes, creates a chain of infinite regress in which the first and moving cause can never be ultimately determined!

Didn't you mention Occam's Razor earlier? :-)

By what mechanism does a hydrogen atom on one side of the universe behave in exactly and precisely the same manner as a hydrogen atom on the other side of the universe? By what mechanism do these two atomic particles separated by unfathomable distances, distances that require hundreds of millions of years for light to travel from one side to other, is the behavior of these two atomic particles maintained in perfect behavioral synchronization? What mind is so vast that can hold both in its gaze at the same time, and what will so powerful to make sure the behavior of both is exactly the same, now and for all time to come? That is God. The average person can see this through the lens of common sense. The Atheist on the other hand, is like an ant with its eyes plucked out.

Hi Cornbread,

I just read your last post.

These are just a couple of the many of your assumptions that is so inconsistent with what is real and observable. -- PH

I just want to make one additional comment regarding the above. Do you think scientists just pull explanations out of their hats? Their hypotheses are based on observations, albeit sometimes indirect observations.

No, they don't pull them out of their hats, they pull them out of their minds. This is not verifiable science in the sense that it cannot be tested by repeating what happened and no one was around to examine and record what happened. It takes interpretation and depending on where you start will depend on where you end up.

Something that has stuck with me for a long period of time, that I find true, is, if you want to find out what a person believes then find out who influences them. These scientists don't come to the table with blank slates, they come with presupposed starting points, and they funnel the information to suit those starting points.

As a supporter of YEC, you apparently believe that the Earth is 6,000 to 10,000 years old; are you claiming that that position is based on observation?

No, I'm doing what you claim you have done. I'm trusting in the One who is the expert. Your trust is in fallible men as 'experts' who are speculating in origins and life, as you yourself have pointed out, because they don't have the answers.

But when you get down to the nitty gritty your arguments crumble into nothing. They are not consistent.

Are you not aware of the piles of inter-disciplinary evidence that such a position is completely untenable? Again, these are rhetorical questions. I fully concede that I cannot use reason to argue someone out of a position they haven't used reason to acquire.

Untenable from minds that are predisposed to naturalistic explanations. They rule out what cannot be empirically observed and verified.

Such scientists are philosophical naturalists, just like you. Science starts from philosophical inquiries, the if/then hypothesis. If an answer seems reasonable then it is built upon further. So you have one terrific house of cards there.

You concede that you cannot use reason to rule out God, but how does reason and logic come about in the first place from non-reasoning, impersonal, unintentional origins?

How can logic be scientifically verified, yet you use it with every sentence? It is not tangible/physical/empirical. Can you taste, touch, smell, hear or see logic? No, you assume it to be there because it is necessary to make sense of anything, and yet you rule out God.

So let's get this straight. You rule out a supreme Mind in creating all this and replace it with change as your reason for reason/logic, along with everything else. And you can't demonstrate any of it. You work by faith. Now who is being gullible?

What the average person can see through the eye of the Hubble Space Telescope makes the viewpoint of the Atheist appear ever more ridiculous and narrow minded. And good fortune would have it, that the Hubble Space Telescope will be replaced by an even more powerful telescope, the James Webb Space Telescope which will be hundred times more powerful. These developments of science will actually help to make the Atheists into a dying breed, which like homosexuals, will become incapable of reproducing themselves.

Hi Cornbread,

Scientific hypotheses do, in fact, get modified, when new evidence warrants it; that's the way science is supposed to work. - Cornbread

That is just my point. But it goes further than that. I have no problem with the scientific method, although God’s word is much surer.

The basic constituents of the scientific method (observation, experimentation, a transparent peer review process, corroboration, parsimony, etc.) haven't changed much in quite a while…proven the best way we have developed so far in evaluating competing truth claims about natural phenomena....(You may not know that the scientific method was first developed by theists who were also frustrated when their observations conflicted with what was written in their holy books…) - CB

My problem is with the evolutionary hypothesis (specifically the macro-evolutionary hypothesis), for it is not an observable scientific method since it is not demonstrable or repeatable now in the present. There are a lot of assumptions that go into interpreting the evidence and believing in it and it takes faith in a world-view that came into its own during the Enlightenment and thereafter. And I am aware of how the scientific method came into being. It was by men who looked to God and wanted to give the glory to him by using their minds to discover His creation; men like Bacon, Newton, Kepler, Pascal, Boyle, Faraday, Lord Kelvin, Pasteur.

Show me life from non-life. – PH

You're kidding, right? – CB

How does it happen? – PH

We don't know yet, but you might be surprised how much progress has been made on this question in just the past few years. Please be aware that even theists who claim to know who started life here haven't even attained that minimum level of progress in showing how he did it. - CB

I’ve heard all this before and seen and read some of the ‘hypotheses.’ I’ve seen articles of speculation that proposes that the universe came from NOTHING. Something from nothing is quite a leap of faith, would you not say?

And God said, “Let us make man in Our image and likeness…”

As simple as that – He spoke and it was so. Not too hard for Someone who is omnipotent, would you not say?

PART 2

Do you know for fact that the universe came into existence by a 'Big Bang?' These are just a couple of the many of your assumptions that is so inconsistent with what is real and observable. – PH

The so-called Big Bang seems to be the consensus opinion for the time being. There are other hypotheses as well. The Hadron Collider in Switzerland was built to help answer these questions.

Consensus that ruled out the Steady State theory or the eternal universe theory and that could think the Multiple Universe theory is the most reasonable in the future.

Seems to be! So one thing that I have in common with those who propose a “Big Bang” is that I agree that the universe did come into being. But it takes big faith to believe in something that appears to have no intent or intelligence originating the complexity, the abundance of life and variety we see in the world, let alone the universe. There are only four or five alternatives that I can think of as to how this all came about, and only one plausible when all is considered.

Chance or design?

For this universe to arise many scientists think that it is quite a coincidence that it is such finely tuned. What is even more amazing is that so many think it came about by chance, for if there was no intent and plan behind it then the odds are astronomically insane that chance is its maker. Without intent all that is left is chance.

People who think their scriptures provide absolute answers to all questions are understandably frustrated by science. They want absolute, unchangeable "proofs" and that's just not the way science works. Sorry. – CB

Not science but evolutionary science and things that go against both God’s word and the scientific method. Origins, life from non-life and macro-evolutionary science are not observable, testable, verifiable, for no one (but God) was there to observe beginnings, or has it ever been tested by repeating it, but the evidence, the facts, are strained through a particular world-view that when examined in depth has not answered life’s most important questions, and it take a giant leap of faith to believe such as you do.

DEEP SPACE

The deep vacuum of space itself, by definition, is immaterial, because there is no material matter in it, yet it exists, we can send material things through it, but there is nothing there. Space is not composed of any kind of atomic matter that we can see or sense. It is just there, a total mystery as far as science is concerned. The existence of empty space proves the existence of a creative power beyond physical mechanisms.

PART 3

You have recommended books to RCofield. Here’s one for you, ‘I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist,’ by Norm Geisler and Frank Turet, who examine life’s most important questions, such as,
1) Origins: Where did we come from?
2) Identity: Who are we?
3) Meaning: Why are we here?
4) Morality: How should we live?
5) Destiny: Where are we going? (p. 20)

Another way of saying much the same is How did we get here, what difference does it make, who cares – metaphysics, epistemology and axiology – with a what happens when I die thrown in for good measure?

Since I prefer the presuppositional approach to apologetics I have thought about those questions long and hard. You have revealed in your last post to me and others that you don’t have answers to at least three of these questions and have no way of making sense of them. Yet you mock the Christian world-view, the only one that is consistent and that does have real true answers to them.

Finally, you've claimed to be a YEC, presumably because of what is recorded in the Bible. Since the Bible says the Earth is fixed in the heavens are you also a geocentrist? If not, why not? Please don't feel obligated to answer; I'm asking for rhetorical purposes only. If you choose to answer I won't be responding.

Yes, a YEC but no, I’m not geocentric. What biblical verse are you referring to? It seems that every time we try to probe your world-view you try to leave Dodge City. Do you feel that your position does not require the courtesy of a response as you ditch ours? Is it that shaky?

cornbread_r2 , “Why do I accept well-supported scientific, naturalistic explanations even though I don't fully understand them? Because every, single, solitary time that natural phenomena have been investigated in the past, they have been shown to have natural, not supernatural, explanations.”

Because God is Spirit, everything that exists, as it was Created by God, and is sustained by the Power of God, has a spiritual, and thus supernatural origin.

This barrier that operates so effectively in the mind of the supreme materialist, which is the Atheist, is enforced by the God-Hating demonic presence. This is a barrier of complete and total irrationality behind which the demon itself hides from the host which uses the victim as a self-righteous pawn of materialistic absolutism. As it written, only a fool believes there is no God.

Actually science, such as it is, is finding evidence for the supernatural, for example dark matter. The astronomers call it dark matter, because they can’t see it. But they can postulate its existence from behavior of light folding itself around some object that cannot be seen. And then you have string theory and the postulation of parallel universes, all of which, beyond the one in which we live, would have to be defined as supernatural. Pretty soon, science itself will be the enemy of the Atheists too.

For of a truth, as I noted before, technology will one day be able to see into the astral plane, and we will see who is tutoring Cornbread_r2. It won’t be a pretty picture. As the Master said, in that day, you will see your teachers face to face.

“Well, you just need to go read the Bible and consult the writings of a few theologians if you want an answer to your question”? You would have rightly considered that more than a little condescending on my part. The point is, if you are going to raise scientific objections to my positions in the course of discussion, it is incumbent upon you to supply scientific data that supports your objections, is it not? Otherwise, it is not possible to have meaningful dialogue. -- RCofield

As a matter of fact, you did supply a list of theologians to consult back in July and I didn't find it condescending in the least.

It is not incumbent upon me to read and distill and explain any and all scientific data with which you happen to have a problem. The data you seek, explained far better and more accurately than I ever could, is found in science books and blogs, the names and URLs for some of which I have supplied. Have a meaningful dialogue with them.

You can't make ID or Creationism data-supported scientific theories by making cornbread look like the non-scientist everyone already knows he is.

Why do I accept well-supported scientific, naturalistic explanations even though I don't fully understand them? Because every, single, solitary time that natural phenomena have been investigated in the past, they have been shown to have natural, not supernatural, explanations. Every time -- without exception. I'm going with the odds.

p.s. The teachings in the Old Testament are by definition incomplete, otherwise there would have been no need for the appearance of the Master Jesus Christ. He came with additional important information. It is clear, after all, that the books of the Old Testament did not contain what was necessary for the majority of Jews to recognize the Messiah, who was standing right in front of them. There was something missing in the Old Testament. However, it should be noted that the Pharisees were under the impression that what they had was the final and ultimate word, and they saw the attempt of the Master Jesus Christ to supplement existing scripture as blasphemous. The Muslims of today believe what they have is the final and ultimate word. I wonder where that idea comes from. It is obviously not true. Concerning the complete Reality of God the universe itself could not hold all the books that could be written.

RCofield says, "I would be happy to respond to your latest post. Before doing so, may I request that you respond directly to my post of 6:10 PM?”

In regards to the question on the subject of the Divine Plan of God for every soul, I think you are looking at this subject through a lense with too wide an angle. You are not going to get me to say that God our Father is not Omnipotent, Omnipresent, and Omniscient. He is. He can do exactly what he wants, at any time, and in any place. Though what he will do, will always reflect his nature of absolute goodness and absolute love, tough love in some situations, but love nevertheless, and absolute faithfulness to his own laws, and his own promises.

However, with that said, there is the matter of freewill. Mankind can oppose God’s Will, and it is not that he can’t doing anything about it. Of course he could, but he will not. He respects the freewill of his children.

I would point out that abortion disrupts the Divine Plan of the soul that is aborted. And that is one of the reasons that abortion is such an egregious crime. The plan of God, for example, for the American economy, is really set back a considerable degree with the absence of the 50 million citizens who are supposed to be here contributing their talents, and that does not even include the children of those people, who cannot be born and contribute, because their parents were never allowed to be born.

Clearly, mankind can oppose God’s Plan in a variety of ways. There are innumerable illustrations that could be brought forward.

As to this question, “do you accept the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments as the ultimate and final authority in all matters of faith and practice for Christians?”

How could I answer “yes” to that question, when I have shown that Christians today cannot fulfill the promise made by the Master Jesus Christ, as it is recorded in John 14:12. There is something missing. And of course, the Master Jesus Christ himself said there was something missing.

“I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.” (John 16:12)

“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.” (John14:26)

“These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs: but the time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall shew you plainly of the Father” (John.16:25 )

Additionally, the Master Jesus taught hours and hours and hours in the temples. Only a tiny percentage of what he said is recorded in the Gospels.

Moreover, the Master Jesus taught his disciples in private the higher mysteries, none of which is recorded in the gospels.

As a general rule, everything that the Master Jesus Christ said, or did, I take as something that we are intended to assimilate. I have never run into anything wherein this was not the case.

Your Turn.

Hi, GOLDENEAGLES,

I would be happy to respond to your latest post. Before doing so, may I request that you respond directly to my post of 6:10 PM?

CORNBREAD,

(You may not know that the scientific method was first developed by theists who were also frustrated when their observations conflicted with what was written in their holy books. I consider it one of life's greatest ironies that Occham's Razor was proposed by a Franciscan.)--CORNBREAD to PETERHUFF

You are aware the "The Razor" cuts equally well (if not better) the other direction, aren't you?

Occam's Razor is one of those tools of logic that is often misunderstood and even more often misused. When one understands the logical absurdity of infinte regress and the mathmatical effeciency of probabilities the "razor" is actually a rather handy tool for theologians.

It was, after all, posited by a theologian.

And it should be noted here that in the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic, and it is certainly not considered a scientific result.

SEE:
Alan Baker, Simplicity, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, (2004)

Courtney A, Courtney M: Comments Regarding "On the Nature Of Science", Physics in Canada, Vol. 64, No. 3 (2008), p7-8.

Dieter Gernert, Ockham's Razor and Its Improper Use, Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 135–140, (2007).

Elliott Sober, Let’s Razor Occam’s Razor, p. 73-93, from Dudley Knowles (ed.) Explanation and Its Limits, Cambridge University Press (1994).

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

Before I get into the process of addressing new issues brought forward by my recent posts, there is a certain element of unfinished business that needs to be addressed.

It is my belief that the promise of the Master Jesus Christ, recorded in John 14:12, is the “ultimate and final authority in all matters of faith and practice for Christians.”

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."

Rcofield and PeterHuff, do you believe the words of the Master Jesus Christ in this instance represents the "ultimate and final authority in all matters of faith and practice for Christians." ???

If not, why not?

If you do believe these words are worthy of ultimate respect, what in your view, are the implications associated with this glaring FACT (which is like the proverbial 800lb gorilla perched comfortably in the sanctuary of every Christian church on the planet) that there is NO evidence in the Christian communities on this planet today, that there is a single "believer" who has succeeded in achieving the belief structure referred to by the Master, which would enable that individual to fulfill the Master's promise?

What are the implications of this fact, in your view? In other words, what does this fact say about the belief structure currently considered to be “right” by the Christian community today?

CORNBREAD,

Part 1 of 2

I did respond. I said I was relieved to find out that you wouldn't…. I accept your explanation for why my concern might be unfounded as far as you're concerned.

Though I wonder how you can so blithely dismiss the equally firmly held belief other people have in their personal revelations and your seeming limiting of God's free will to change his mind….But surely, you can't claim to speak for all theists, can you?

Nu 23:19 God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?

Mal 3:6 “For I the LORD do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed.

Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.

CORNBREAD,

Part 2 of 2

Regarding the apocalyptic preachers: This is the second or third time you've played the "no true Christian" card. It's handy, but unconvincing.

Regarding your other science-related questions: We've gotten back to exactly where we were on the Cal Thomas thread in July; a non-scientist is being asked to explain science to another non-scientist. As I asked then (and which you interpreted as "condescension"), wouldn't it be more efficient if you researched these questions in science books? I recommended several sources then. Have you checked them out? That I'm being asked exactly the same questions again leads me to conclude you've already reached a conclusion and are just trying to use my lack of scientific expertise to make a theological point. Apologies if I'm mistaken.

That being said, wouldn’t it stand to reason that if you are going to contend that I don’t understand the science behind your positions you should respond with answers to those questions? When you asked a theological question I tried to give you an honest, thorough answer. What would you have said if I responded by saying “Well, you just need to go read the Bible and consult the writings of a few theologians if you want an answer to your question”? You would have rightly considered that more than a little condescending on my part. The point is, if you are going to raise scientific objections to my positions in the course of discussion, it is incumbent upon you to supply scientific data that supports your objections, is it not? Otherwise, it is not possible to have meaningful dialogue.

In any case, I won't be participating further.

These are just a couple of the many of your assumptions that is so inconsistent with what is real and observable. -- PH

I just want to make one additional comment regarding the above. Do you think scientists just pull explanations out of their hats? Their hypotheses are based on observations, albeit sometimes indirect observations. As a supporter of YEC, you apparently believe that the Earth is 6,000 to 10,000 years old; are you claiming that that position is based on observation? Are you not aware of the piles of inter-disciplinary evidence that such a position is completely untenable? Again, these are rhetorical questions. I fully concede that I cannot use reason to argue someone out of a position they haven't used reason to acquire.

RCofield:

Yet I responded to your question lucidly and you never replied. Do you accept my explanation of why your concern is unfounded, or do you dispute my answer? -- RCofield

I did respond. I said I was relieved to find out that you wouldn't. Though I wonder how you can so blithely dismiss the equally firmly held belief other people have in their personal revelations and your seeming limiting of God's free will to change his mind, I accept your explanation for why my concern might be unfounded as far as you're concerned. But surely, you can't claim to speak for all theists, can you?

Regarding the apocalyptic preachers:

This is the second or third time you've played the "no true Christian" card. It's handy, but unconvincing.

Regarding your other science-related questions:

We've gotten back to exactly where we were on the Cal Thomas thread in July; a non-scientist is being asked to explain science to another non-scientist. As I asked then (and which you interpreted as "condescension"), wouldn't it be more efficient if you researched these questions in science books? I recommended several sources then. Have you checked them out? That I'm being asked exactly the same questions again leads me to conclude you've already reached a conclusion and are just trying to use my lack of scientific expertise to make a theological point. Apologies if I'm mistaken. In any case, I won't be participating further.

Apologies also to R. Albert Mohler Jr. for my off-topic trampling all over his thread.

...you seem to have elevated science to the realms of untouchable in its truth aspects all the while science holds to the scientific method, which is constantly being modified and updated and along the lines of origin of life and universe there is nothing conclusive, nothing repeatable, nothing observable. -- PeterHuff

Scientific hypotheses do, in fact, get modified, when new evidence warrants it; that's the way science is supposed to work.

The basic constituents of the scientific method (observation, experimentation, a transparent peer review process, corroboration, parsimony, etc.) haven't changed much in quite a while. Over time it has proven the best way we have developed so far in evaluating competing truth claims about natural phenomena. If you can propose a better way of doing that, then by all means knock yourself out. That you would conflate scientific findings with the scientific method perhaps explains some of your confusion and frustration. (You may not know that the scientific method was first developed by theists who were also frustrated when their observations conflicted with what was written in their holy books. I consider it one of life's greatest ironies that Occham's Razor was proposed by a Franciscan.)

Show me life from non-life. -- PH

You're kidding, right?

How does it happen? -- PH

We don't know yet, but you might be surprised how much progress has been made on this question in just the past few years. Please be aware that even theists who claim to know who started life here haven't even attained that minimum level of progress in showing how he did it.

Do you know for fact that the universe came into existence by a 'Big Bang?' These are just a couple of the many of your assumptions that is so inconsistent with what is real and observable. -- PH

The so-called Big Bang seems to be the consensus opinion for the time being. There are other hypotheses as well. The Hadron Collider in Switzerland was built to help answer these questions.

People who think their scriptures provide absolute answers to all questions are understandably frustrated by science. They want absolute, unchangeable "proofs" and that's just not the way science works. Sorry.

Finally, you've claimed to be a YEC, presumably because of what is recorded in the Bible. Since the Bible says the Earth is fixed in the heavens are you also a geocentrist? If not, why not? Please don't feel obligated to answer; I'm asking for rhetorical purposes only. If you choose to answer I won't be responding.

PETERHUFF, PSOLUS, GOLDENEAGLES, CORNBREAD,

Peter Huff said:

This forum must be near its end. Where to next? Maybe we can combine the other forum in which Walter is on?

These threads normally expire after 14 days. If so, this one will be good until sometime Wednesday.

If it is OK with you guys I will wait until sometime tomorrow night to post another thread on which we can continue our discussion.

It's usually better to wait and pick one as late as possible so that we can get one where there is not too much traffic already.

GOLDENEAGLES,

In light of that last series of posts I think I am beginning to get a bead on where you are coming from.

If I am not mistaken, this is your thesis statement for those 4 posts:

Now, there are severe implications associated with indulging a point of resonant sympathy with the demon world. The most severe of these implications is the destruction of the divine plan itself.--GOLDENEAGLES

Isa 43:13 Also henceforth I am He; there is none who can deliver from my hand; I work, and who can turn it back?”

Job 23:13 ¶ But he is unchangeable, and who can turn him back? What he desires, that he does.

Pr 19:21 Many are the plans in the mind of a man, but it is the purpose of the LORD that will stand.

Ec 3:14 I perceived that whatever God does endures forever; nothing can be added to it, nor anything taken from it. God has done it, so that people fear before him.

Isa 14:27 For the LORD of hosts has purposed, and who will annul it? His hand is stretched out, and who will turn it back?

Isa 46:10 …declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose,’

Da 4:35 all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, “What have you done?”

Eph 1:11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will,

Mt 19:26 (Responding to the disciples’ question “Who then can be saved?”) But Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

Joh 6:37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.

First, do you accept the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments as the ultimate and final authority in all matters of faith and practice for Christians?

If so, how do you square those last 4 posts with the above passages, which seem to make it quite clear that the redemptive purpose of God cannot be thwarted?

Hi RCofield, GoldenEagles, Cornbread, PSolus,

This forum must be near its end. Where to next? Maybe we can combine the other forum in which Walter is on?

RCofield, you said to GoldenEagles,

I have read your posts with interest for some time now and I must confess I am in the dark on some of the things you have introduced into this discussion (i.e. Father/Mother God, astral plane, reincarnation, "gaping holes" in Christian Theology, etc.). May I ask what "theological" discipline you are following to arrive at these beliefs?

I'm of the same opinion you are. Where does GoldenEagles come up with his mother/father approach to Scripture, or this astral plane? I've invited him to reveal from where in the Bible he sees this as being so. It's almost like he is incorporating some North American Indian or New Age beliefs into Christianity, very unorthodox to say the least.

Cornbread, you seem to have elevated science to the realms of untouchable in its truth aspects all the while science holds to the scientific method, which is constantly being modified and updated and along the lines of origin of life and universe there is nothing conclusive, nothing repeatable, nothing observable. Show me life from non-life. How does it happen? Do you know for fact that the universe came into existence by a 'Big Bang?' These are just a couple of the many of your assumptions that is so inconsistent with what is real and observable.

HOW THE DIVINE PLAN OF
THE SOUL IS DEFEATED - Part 4 of 4

This is the primary point. The most essential aspect of the spiritual path is the conscious effort the soul must make to work with the Master Jesus Christ, to identify those areas of the soul psychology which represent electrodes of rebellion against the Law of God. Those electrodes of rebellion must be eliminated. In no other way can the Shield of Light be built up against this ongoing onslaught of emotional manipulation with which the demon world constantly strews before the feet of the people as stones of stumbling. And this process by which the soul identifies and casts out these points of rebellion, one by one, can only be done through freewill choice.

And is it not amazing to think that some people, who make no effort at all in this process of clearing these points of rebellion from the soul psychology, believe they can take these electrodes of rebellion into the heaven world with them, that God would endow the condition of rebellion itself, with eternal life. Some people believe that. While we have an appropriate framework of analysis to help us understand why they believe that, it is still appropriate to point out that they will shocked to learn, when the time comes, just how much folly that belief represents. Yes, to what degree they had been deceived and manipulated into wasting their time in embodiment on earth will literally shock them out of their socks.

At any rate, as these steps are taken, the entry points into the feeling world, by which the demonic world can manipulate the soul through the application of negative feelings, doubt and fear, hatred, anger, disdain, contempt, mockery, and so forth, are progressively eliminated. Thus, the soul is able to be more understanding and obedient to divine direction in terms of the steps it must take to fulfill its divine plan, and in that way, does the Law itself allow the Master Jesus Christ to fill the temple with more and more light, even to serve as the lantern that will light the way.

Always remember that the Master has set forth the general destination to which he desires to bring every soul, in his promise recorded in 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."

As for you cornbread_r2, the path that has led you to what amounts to a place of darkness and alienation, represents a long string of choices that you have made to turn your back on your own divine plan, allowing the demonic world to press you, nudge you, and thereby guide you, to the place they wanted you to be, to serve them as a pawn for the Destruction of Faith in the People of God.

HOW THE DIVINE PLAN OF
THE SOUL IS DEFEATED - Part 3 of 4

This point of resonant sympathy with the demon world, which is provided by a single point of rebellion against the law, in this case abortion, can be further expanded. For example, we see that those who represent the political constituency for abortion rights, are those who have come to form the political constituency for homosexual rights. As a general rule, these people are now being steered to walk in the wrong direction on every major issue.

Remember, at one time in America, there was zero constituency for abortion rights. At one time in America, there was zero constituency for homosexual rights. Yet today, the nation has majorities leaning in the direction of seeing these points of rebellion as virtues. How has that come to pass? It is through this mechanism by which the demonic world leans on the feeling world of the individual, where the person feels strong contempt or disdain, and mockery, for those who champion the traditional and original values.

This explains the mindless and irrational hatred that all of sudden appeared, within this very population (left of center proponents of abortion and homosexuality) against President George W. Bush. President Bush was leading the nation in exactly the right direction (in most respects). The effort to set the Iraqi people free from a brutal dictator was an essential forward step in America’s Divine Plan. Yet, here we see a major portion of the population, specifically those who have made themselves vulnerable to demonic manipulation through their rebellion against the law on the issues of abortion and homosexuality, being manipulated into believing that the right direction is the wrong direction. Not through reason, but through mindless emotional negativity.

What the demon world can do in regards to steering the individual, they can do in terms of steering the agenda of the nation. It is important to keep in mind in this respect, that just as an individual has a divine plan, so too does a nation have a divine plan, and that the demonic world uses these avenues of manipulation to block both.

You can see the same influences at work today in the area of Afghanistan. It is absolutely essential that America win that war in Afghanistan, and shepherd the Afghan people through the storm into what will be for them, finally, the peaceful oasis of democratic stability. This is another essential step forward in America’s divine plan. Yet, when you look at the comments that people make in regards to this issue on the Washington Post forums, 99% of the people express a position based on negative emotions, a sense of despair, throwing up their hands in the spirit of defeat, and not on any reasoned analysis of the situation.

HOW THE DIVINE PLAN OF
THE SOUL IS DEFEATED - Part 2 of 4

Every soul has a divine plan. When the soul comes into contact with the Master Jesus Christ, which cornbread_r2 did in his Catholic upbringing, he will begin working with that soul for this important purpose, to help the soul understand what is the Plan of God for his soul, and to assist the soul in following that divine plan, which is a daily step-by-step process.

Regarding what the Divine Plan might be for a particular soul, no one can know that, expect God our Father and Mother. But in general terms, the divine plan for every soul has been condensed by the Master in the Scripture given at John 14:12. As to the specific route that a soul needs to take to get to that destination, this knowledge is given to the Master Jesus Christ for the purpose of helping the soul to understand what are the right steps to take.

The demon world understands this process, and they have arrayed themselves to block it. And they have blocked it, even for centuries. I would point out again, that there is not a single person in the Christian community today, in any of its branches, who has fulfilled the promise set forth by the Master in 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."

If the soul indulges a point of rebellion within its psychology, which is then used by the demon world to lean upon the feeling world with negative emotions, we can see this clearly, that when it comes to taking an essential step on the path, which the Master Jesus Christ would like to inspire the soul to take, the demon world can lean on the feeling world of the individual, and “inspire” the soul to take a step in the opposite direction. In this way is the divine plan for a particular soul basically defeated.

Again, this is the essential steering mechanism of the dark side. When the soul indulges a point of rebellion, the demon world has an entry point, whereby it can lean against the feeling world of the individual with the force of doubt, with the force of fear and so forth, steering the soul away from taking the step the Master knows the soul must take.

When a soul FEELS disdain or contempt, doubt, or fear, regarding a particular step it needs to take on the path, the soul will not take that step. In that way is the divine plan defeated.

Therefore, when the soul says to itself, I feel disdain towards this idea, or that idea, in terms of taking an important step on the path, the soul must be vigilant in discerning the source of those kinds of feelings.

HOW THE DIVINE PLAN OF
THE SOUL IS DEFEATED - Part 1 of 4

Cornbread_r2 says, “And then when I inform you that I did those things ... ”

My list of what is required for the Master Jesus Christ to release the Light into the world of the spiritual disciple was not meant to be comprehensive. After all, you can be sure that the Pharisees depicted in the New Testament stories did all of those things too, but the Master said of them, that they were filled with dead men’s bones.

Prayer and devotion are essential of course. But the soul must also make the effort to integrate the Teaching into one’s life. That requires the study of the scriptures. And it requires the posture of obedience. The integration of the Teaching itself is what allows the Shield of Light in the aura to become more and more complete.

This is a very important principle, the Shield of Light, which is required to block the impact of the forces of darkness upon the feeling world of the individual.

The essential principle that describes the characteristic and quality of shield integrity, is Obedience to the Laws of God. More precisely, loving obedience.

As an illustration, take the commandment, thou shalt not kill, in reference to the widespread murder of the innocent children aborning in the womb. Here is an example where tens of millions of people have REFUSED to integrate the Law of God into their soul psychology.

What these people have, then, in their soul psychology, related to the idea that abortion is a national virtue, is an electrode of rebellion against the Law of God. This electrode of rebellion against the Law of God provides a point of resonant sympathy with the overall rebellion against the Law of God which the demon world represents. This point of resonant sympathy with the demon world, provides an entry point for the demon world to lean on their feeling world with negative emotions. This represents the primary steering mechanism, and methodology of control, that the demonic world has over embodied souls (who have not built up a shield of light).

Now, there are severe implications associated with indulging a point of resonant sympathy with the demon world. The most severe of these implications is the destruction of the divine plan itself.

CORNBREAD,

I went back and reread the thread I alluded to. While it's true you did not specifically endorse ID per se, you certainly spent a great deal of time arguing for an intelligent designer and against all of my (and others') objections to ID. It seems odd that you wouldn't just come out and declare yourself to be a 6-day creationist at the beginning of that discussion.

I actually did state that I was a 6-day creationist (to TW) about the time you exited the discussion. Six day creationists do contend that the universe was intelligently design, we just reject the ID penchant for adopting the evolutionary model.

Anyway, wasn't ID demonstrated to just be Creationism dressed in a new suit during the Dover, PA trial? Seems like one of those distinctions without a difference.

In any case, my reasons for leaving the only other discussion we've engaged in remain the same: when you weren't trying to convince me that natural selection was an "abstract principle" or that the study of abiogenesis was somehow dependent on the theory of evolution or that selection was somehow random, you were offering opinion in place of scientific data and that I can get anywhere.

Go back in this discussion and check the context in which I first posed my question to GoldenEagles. Though I think it's a valid question for any theist, Christian or otherwise, who believes in divine revelation, divine command theory and/or demonic possession, I think it was particularly justified in his/her case.

Regarding the Apocalypse: You don't watch much John Hagee, Perry Stone, Jack Van Impe or Hal Lindsey do you?

One final rhetorical question: Who would you rather live next door to -- the most rabid secular humanist imaginable or Fred Phelps?

GoldenEagles:

First you insist:

The soul must make the freewill decision to set the context for the delivery of the light. The soul must make the decision to pray, to sing, and to study sacred scripture. That is what sets the context for the transmission of Light, which some people use the term “Holy Spirit” to describe. -- GE

And then when I inform you that I did those things, you write:

But I would like to address the question as to why the Master Jesus Christ, with all of your praying and singing, did not make it clear to you, that God is Real. -- GE

Let me guess: because I didn't pray and sing and wear funny clothes in your church?

At this juncture I think it's best to let your latest claim to some kind of superior spiritual knowledge stand as an appropriate bookend to the absolute tosh you posted early in this thread.

GOLDENEAGLES,

I have read your posts with interest for some time now and I must confess I am in the dark on some of the things you have introduced into this discussion (i.e. Father/Mother God, astral plane, reincarnation, "gaping holes" in Christian Theology, etc.).

May I ask what "theological" discipline you are following to arrive at these beliefs?

cornbread_r2 says, “I'm not trying to speak from authority. I didn't invent that list of attributes -- I recalled them from memory -- after 12 years of Catholic education, four of which were in a prep-seminary. I've prayed. I've sang. I've dressed in liturgical clothing that most boys wouldn't be caught dead in.”

I get the impression that you are beginning to understand the point I was making.

Even with 12 years of Catholic education, your mind remains completely void of ANY EVIDENCE that God is Real. That is obvious from your state of non-belief. I wish you would simply make a statement up front on that point. Can’t you just say, for example, “That I have never received any internal affirmation whatsoever that God is Real. I am completely empty in this regard.” If this is what is really true, I wish you would just say it.

(Note: My reference to Catholic education in the foregoing paragraph is not intended to cast a negative light upon it. For most people, I think that this form of religious education helps to produce the sincere and prayerful posture of heart, mind and soul, that will allow the Master Jesus Christ to release the Light of Truth therein. But for others, they never master the proper prayerful posture of the soul, and thus, the Holy Spirit, i.e. the Reality of God, will continue to roll of their backs, like water off a duck.)

And so, where does that leave you? It leaves you to interpret this concept, of the Trinity, and its constituent parts, not simply, intellectually, but in a acid bath of mockery and ridicule.

Even as the veracity of these ideas are being further dissolved by the acid bath of your own disdain, even as they become more and more microscopic in the realm of personal relevance and value, you think that your intellect can create an accurate logical deduction from these minute particles, that points to what? A point of “evidence” that will allow your mind to crucify the character of the Master one more time.

Your mind, in its current state, is not being used to look for truth in this area. It is looking for a reason to form another nail to pound into the Master’s hand.

Like I said, the condition of your mind, such as it is, only produces thorns in this area.

As a general principle, the un-illuminated intellect cannot come within a billion miles of understanding what the principle of the Trinity means.

But I would like to address the question as to why the Master Jesus Christ, with all of your praying and singing, did not make it clear to you, that God is Real. Why do you think that is? What part of the equation of devotion was missing, where the law itself demanded that He not lift a finger to help you understand the Truth about God’s Reality?

And thus, you cannot speak with authority on what the Trinity is. -- GE

First of all, I'm gratified that you spent part of your Sabbath attempting to read my mind and making unwarranted assumptions about my past. Do you get double points for those sorts of things on Sunday?

I'm not trying to speak from authority. I didn't invent that list of attributes -- I recalled them from memory -- after 12 years of Catholic education, four of which were in a prep-seminary. I've prayed. I've sang. I've dressed in liturgical clothing that most boys wouldn't be caught dead in.

I was also taught that the Trinity is the Triune God; that it is three persons in one -- Father, Son and Holy Spirit; that it is indivisible ; that it is eternal ; that it is immutable; that it is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent .

I may not be the most astute non-believer to infect this forum, but I'm fairly confident in my ability to use a dictionary. Now, if those words above in bold mean to you what they normally mean to most people and if those attributes are true, then how is it possible that Jesus, the second person of the Trinity, was not present for all of the events of the OT?

It's entirely possible that you and others have found some slick way of getting around what I consider an inescapable conclusion -- and I really can't blame you all -- but it's made it impossible for me to look at the baby Jesus snuggling in his crib quite the same way ever again.

Defining God-Reality
or at Least the Doorway
that Leads Into it.

Cornbread_R2, if you could just admit to me that you understand that your head is empty when it comes to the subject of God-Reality, then that would be the bridge for you to understand what I was getting at.

I am wondering why an Atheist can’t answer this question quickly and decisively. Perhaps you are getting hung up on semantics.

It is possible, in this regard, that you sincerely believe that you are in possession of "God-Reality" in your belief that God Does Not Exist. That this firm belief in the unreality of God, is “God-Reality” to you. And so, you believe your mind is full of “God-Reality”.

Let me dispell the confusion on this point.

I am using the term "God-Reality" to communicate the idea of the range of inner experiences given to man that communicate to the soul that God does in fact exist, inner transmissions of light that educate the soul as to the nature of God. Inner experiences that say, GOD IS REAL.

The fallen soul, embodied in a physical vehicle, does not have direct access to this domain of light. The soul has access to this inner domain of light transmission, as a general rule, only through the sacred heart of the Master Jesus Christ. The soul experiences these light communications primarily in the context of sincere devotional and prayer work.

In this regard, context is all important. The soul must make the freewill decision to set the context for the delivery of the light. The soul must make the decision to pray, to sing, and to study sacred scripture. That is what sets the context for the transmission of Light, which some people use the term “Holy Spirit” to describe.

Therefore, when I use the term “God-Reality” I am speaking to this domain of inner experience, this domain of light transmission, that educates the soul concerning the Reality of God.

And therefore, when I say, that your mind is empty of God-Reality, that means that you have no inner sense, zero, that God is Real. Your inner world is an empty void in that respect. And because your inner world is an empty void in that respect, you do not have the information necessary to understand what is meant by the Trinity. And thus, you cannot speak with authority on what the Trinity is. And you cannot derive truth from a state of ignorance in this regard, i.e. that the Master Jesus was here, or there, or anywhere.

So, if you could just admit to me that you understand that your head is empty when it comes to the subject of God-Reality (as I have defined it here) then that would be the bridge for you to understand what I was getting at in my previous posts.

Cornbread_ru, if you could just admit to me that you understand that your head is empty when it comes to the subject of God-Reality, then that would be the bridge for you to understand what I was getting at.

peterhuff,

"Hi RCofield,

Good retort to Cornbread."

Have you not read GoldenEagles latest comment?

Not the one about orifices, the one about empty heads and voids?

You two nutjobs can't hold a candle to that nutjob.

He almost had me selling everything that I own and following him as an apostle.

You guys need to up your game a couple of notches, there's a new insane sheriff in town.

You (cornbread_r2) are not qualified to speak to me about the Trinity. Why? Because YOU don't believe in the Trinity. It's not about what I believe, it is about what you don't believe. YOU cannot speak with authority on anything that YOU don't believe in. Therefore, I did not ask you to explain it to me.

It is not my intent to perpetrate a character slam upon you when I say that you are not qualified to speak to me regarding the meaning of the Trinity. I say it only to explain to you why I am not asking you to explain any of this any further to me.

I am curious why you are not getting this point. It's like you have come into a domain of conceptualization where you have lost the capacity to understand the English language.

On the point of the Trinity, your head is empty. So, I will not ask you to express the emptiness of your mind on that point.

Does that make it more clear?

You may be an expert on computer programming. So, if I have question regarding how to write a particular piece of code, I would ask you, because your head is not empty on that score.

But when it comes to anything about God, your head becomes a large and empty void. And truth cannot come out of a large and empty void, so I will not ask you to express yourself out of that large and empty void. You could not possibly have anything valuable to say on the subject of any doctrinal point. Why? Because your head is a large and empty void on anything having to do with the Reality of God.

Does that make it more clear?

But, the void can be filled. You seem to be arguing that I am wrong to say that a void cannot be filled. But I never argued that. If the person asks me to explain the Trinity to them in good faith, I would try to explain it, try to fill that empty void.

But I will not ask you to explain a theological point to me, because of YOUR empty void. I hope you understand. You are a large empty void when it comes to experiencing the Reality of God, and therefore, you cannot say anything on the subject that would represent any kind of truth. That is my point.

Maybe you are having trouble digesting this idea that your mind is an empty void on the subject of God, because it is so full of negative ideas about God.

A mind can be full of negative ideas about God, and at the same time represent an utter void regarding the Reality of God.

A mind that represents an utter void concerning the reality of God, can never utter a truth about the reality of God, because the mind has never experienced the reality of God.

Please tell me that you finally understood what I was getting at.

Hi RCofield,

Good retort to Cornbread.

I met the atheist (humanist) that I told you had posted his humanist beliefs all over our local buses. We had a coffee together and a good talk about the places we had been and about our lives; on everything but what we were in contention about. But to cut to the chase, our couple of weeks of debate ended with his admission that because I was a YEC I had disqualified myself from any further debate. Can you believe that?

He never answered my concerns, just talked around them, especially when I started to investigate his evolving scientific beliefs with him and the 'certainty' of science. Science does seem to be the 'elitist' position of the day. It is forbidden to examine its internal consistencies (or lack of them on so many issues involving origins and life).

Your response to my statement is confusing. It sounds like you are responding to an argument that I did not make. -- GoldenEagles

Correct, because you didn't make any kind of argument at all. You just asserted that it would be pointless to try to explain the Trinity to me if I didn't already believe in the Trinity. (See below) That's what I was responding to with my pixie analogy.

If you don’t believe something, it is impossible to enter into the depth of it, for the purpose of acquiring a genuine degree of understanding, especially regarding the constituent principles, and how these principles are rightly applied. In this manner, it is impossible to extrapolate a point of truth from a mass of disbelief. -- GE

This seems to be how theologians get to claim that faith and reason are compatible -- by insisting that something unfalsifiable be believed by faith alone first and then applying reason to rationalize the already-accepted belief. To go back to my pixie analogy: if I got you to accept the existence of my invisible pixies through unevidenced faith alone first , it would then be pathetically easy to irrefutably and logically explain all sorts of things about them; from what they wear on their days off, to what they like on their pizzas. It's a pretty nifty trick, but it's not something that's ever worked for me, even a little bit, in everyday problem-solving.

By the way, nice touch with the crown of thorns image, but now I'm confused. Am I demon-possessed or a Roman soldier?

How did you get from point A to point B? -- GE

As much as I'd like to pierce your vessel of faith, perhaps it would be best for RCofield, or someone like him, to explain the attributes of the Trinity to you. And while they're at it have them include "immutability" to the list -- something I stupidly left off.

GoldenEagles,

Obfuscation on the Teaching of the Thorn Bush

"In my thorn bush analogy, you (cornbread_r2) are the thorn bush."

I want to be the thorn bush.

"The idea is, that a thorn bush cannot produce figs, i.e. things that are good to eat."

That's not a problem, I don't like figs.

I do like Fig Newtons, though.

"Thorn bushes are only capable of producing thorns."

I'm down with that.

"Sharp things that cause pain."

Like pricks?

"And yes, I got pulled into the illusion, holding out the possibility that a thorn bush can produce a fig."

Do you like figs?

"And so, I asked the thorn bush to give me some more figs, in terms of helping me to understand how you came to the above conclusion."

Did you get your figs?

"And here again, you are acting like you are putting more figs on my plate."

Well, did you get your figs or didn't you?

[A bunch of confusing religious stuff expurgated.]

Well, I lost interest after you stopped talking about figs.

Didn't Nabisco also make Raspberry Newtons?

Clarification on the Teaching of the Thorn Bush

In my thorn bush analogy, you (cornbread_r2) are the thorn bush. The idea is, that a thorn bush cannot produce figs, i.e. things that are good to eat. Thorn bushes are only capable of producing thorns. Sharp things that cause pain.

In regards to your assertion that the Master Jesus Christ was an active participant in the judgement of the Amalekites, the thorn bush is acting like it has produced a fig.

And yes, I got pulled into the illusion, holding out the possibility that a thorn bush can produce a fig.

And so, I asked the thorn bush to give me some more figs, in terms of helping me to understand how you came to the above conclusion.

To which you responded, “Triune God...three persons in one... indivisible... eternally existing.”

And here again, you are acting like you are putting more figs on my plate.

In as much as I Am still in the illusion (that a thorn bush can produce figs) I feel tempted to ask you how you derived this idea that the Master Jesus Christ participated in the Judgment of the Amalekites, from these ideas, “Triune God...three persons in one... indivisible... eternally existing.” How did you get from point A to point B?

But at that point, it becomes clear to me, that it is impossible (for you) to derive a truth from a set of principles in which (you) don’t believe. For example, if a person believes the world is flat, he will not be able to derive a realistic theory on orbital mechanics. In the same manner, you don’t believe in God, so you cannot discuss the principles inherent in the Being of God. It would be like asking a two-year old to explain the joys of sex. What can he know about it? As far as he is concerned it does not exist.

And so, in that regard, I am asking, is it possible for YOU to have accurately concluded from the aforementioned principles, that the Master was present in that situation? The answer is no. Why? Because you don’t believe in those principles, you don’t understand those principles, therefore, YOU cannot squeeze any truth out of those principles. So there is no point in asking you to explain it. In all realism and practicality, as long as you remain imprisoned in that very dark and sealed chamber of unbelief, the only thing your mind can produce are more thorns.

And then I went on to explain, that the unbeliever is like unto a thorn bush. The psychological matrix in which the fallen soul is enmeshed, is not interested in what is truth, or what is error. The mind is interested only in using a given situation to form a thorn that it can stick in the side of the Person of Faith. Pointed observations, that will draw blood, which will both pierce and damage the Container of Faith itself. This is a fair characterization of everything you have uttered in regards to the very God who causes your own heart to beat.

RCofield,

"Yes, Peregrine, and we are all aware of the wide disparity that exists between the words “truth” and “facts.”"

We are indeed.

"And we are all very much aware of those untold millions that that “subconsciously” use the tools of philosophical skepticism and Occam’s razor, not to mention using education, extrapolation, common sense, and critical thinking without involving their intellect."

We are indeed.

"When you repeatedly try to re-frame your statements with such sophomoric contortions it is rather obvious who is being childish here."

Who... jebus?

"Your psycho-analysis doesn’t square with the facts when one realizes that I deliberately expose my beliefs to the mockery and denigration of atheists, anti-theists, and non-theists such as yourself on these threads daily, now does it?"

Yes it does; it also indicates that you may well have masochistic tendencies in addition to your feelings of inadequacy, inferiority, and self-doubt.

"Yes, I’m sure that anyone reading my posts can see that I am riddled with feelings of inferiority and inadequacy."

Well, don't sweat it; there's really nothing that you can do about that.

"And “lashing out at others?”"

Yes, lashing out at others.

"Did I hurt your feelings, Peregrine?"

No; is that what you've been attempting to do all this time?

"Perhaps, Sigmund, the fact that I try to “prove” what I believe to be true is evidence that I believe there are things worth believing."

So how does that make you feel?

Do you want to talk about it?

"And this from someone who revels in mindless one-line zingers masquerading as rebuttals."

Hey, some of my mindless zingers consist of two lines; I recall one or two consisting of three lines.

"No, in other words you seemingly cannot follow a line of reasoning that is more than one sentence long and carries from one post to another."

Uh... what was that again?

"Ummm…you may be confusing me with yourself now."

That's possible; I have been feeling somewhat inadequate and inferior lately.

"Observe:"

Gee, I wish I could think of a clever and imaginative way of dealing with this sort of situation...

"[self-aggrandizing comments of one Peregrine Solus expurgated]"

That's brilliant!

How did you think of that?

I wish I had thought of that!

You don't think that I would look like a total loser if I were to copy that from you and use it myself, do you?

"You know, I did."

Aha!

"And found the darndest thing."

I'll bet you did.

"Did you know that doubt can be defined as a “lack of certainty?”"

I sure did.

"Whoddathunkit?"

Who, indeed.

"Uhhh…I think you are the one who keeps bringing up this “jebus” character."

Do you think, or do you know?

cornbread_r2 says, “If I told you that you first had to believe in the invisible pixies in my crab-apple tree before I could explain them and before you could truly understand them, I expect you'd object to that requisite pretty strongly -- and with good reason. So why would you think I'd buy it?”

Your response to my statement is confusing. It sounds like you are responding to an argument that I did not make.

PEREGRINE,
Part 1 of 2

Aside from your mistaken belief that I used the word "truth", I never claimed that I used "intellectual" tools, as you mistakenly believe, as these are tools that most people use subconsciously in their every day lives.

You believed that I used the word "intellectual" because you wanted to believe that I used the word "intellectual", just as you believed that I used the word "truth" because you wanted to believe that I used the word "truth".

I'm guessing that your passive aggressive projection of intellectuality on others is a result of you being constantly mocked and denigrated for your superstitious beliefs.

That constant mocking and denigration probably creates feelings of inferiority and inadequacy in you, and I'm guessing that you attempt to combat those feelings by lashing out at others.

The very fact that you make the effort to attempt to "prove" that you are right is probably another symptom of your feelings of self doubt.

These childish little "victory dances" to which you are prone are probably also manifestations of your feelings of inferiority and inadequacy, and appear to be attempts on your part to bolster your self esteem.

In other words: No, you cannot.

PEREGRINE,
Part 2 of 2

So, you believe that you're brighter than fundamentalists?
So, you believe that you're brighter than people who watch the "700 Club"?
So, you believe that you're brighter than people who watch television?

No, I found it [Christianity] confusing from the very first time that someone tried to foist it on me. I was quite young at the time, but, apparently, I was not as stupid as the person who tried to foist it on me thought that I was.

Have you not looked up "doubt" in the dictionary yet?

The simple fact that you brought it up.

And when you consider the spiritual implication of thorns, please remember to bring into that mental picture the nature of the "crown" placed on the head of the Master by the Roman soldiers.

GoldenEagles:

If I told you that you first had to believe in the invisible pixies in my crab-apple tree before I could explain them and before you could truly understand them, I expect you'd object to that requisite pretty strongly -- and with good reason. So why would you think I'd buy it?

Why not just punt, like most theists do eventually, and solemnly declare the Trinity a divine mystery? Not only can I not argue against one of those, it allows you to retain some sense of authority without appearing that you don't really know anything about it. Seems like a win-win.

Regarding the Assertion that the Master
Jesus Christ was Present and Complicit
in the Amalekite Judgment Scenario

Responding to my query asking for the reason that he declared the Master Jesus Christ to be present and complicit in the midst of the Amalekite Judgment Scenario, cornbread_r2 says, “Triune God...three persons in one...indivisible...eternally existing...ring any bells?”

I appreciate the response, but my mind has been set to wondering what would be the point of discussing a theological principle with someone who doesn’t believe in the principle to begin with?

When Cornbread_r2 says, “Triune God”, he is thinking in his heart, “I Don’t Believe in A Triune God.”

When Cornbread_r2 says, “Three persons in one ... indivisible,” he is thinking in his heart, “I don’t believe in this principle of three persons in one ... indivisible.”

When Cornbread_r2 says, “eternally existing”, he is thinking in his heart, “I don’t believe in this principle of anything eternally existing.”

If you don’t believe something, it is impossible to enter into the depth of it, for the purpose of acquiring a genuine degree of understanding, especially regarding the constituent principles, and how these principles are rightly applied. In this manner, it is impossible to extrapolate a point of truth from a mass of disbelief.

And so, why fall into this delusion, and stand for any amount of time, before a thorn bush, expecting it to sprout figs? I think what the thorn bush has produced in this instance, is just another thorn.

Yes, just another thorn that sprouts out of the mass of disbelief designed to draw blood in all those who come in contact with it.

The intelligence that lurks in that mass of disbelief has a design criteria. What can I say that will cause pain to the People of Faith? And thus, out sprouts another thorn, and another, and another, and another, ad infinitum.

Regarding the Assertion that the Master Jesus Christ
was Present in the Amalekite Judgment Scenario

Responding to my query asking for the reason that he declared the Master Jesus Christ to be present and complicit in the midst of the Amalekite Judgment Scenario, cornbread_r2 says, “Triune God...three persons in one...indivisible...eternally existing...ring any bells?”

I appreciate the response, but my mind has been set to wondering what would be the point of discussing a theological principle with someone who doesn’t believe in the principle to begin with?

When Cornbread_r2 says, “Triune God”, he is thinking in his heart, “I Don’t Believe in A Triune God.”

When Cornbread_r2 says, “Three persons in one ... indivisible,” he is thinking in his heart, “I don’t believe in this principle of three persons in one ... indivisible.”

When Cornbread_r2 says, “eternally existing”, he is thinking in his heart, “I don’t believe in this principle of anything eternally existing.”

If you don’t believe something, it is impossible to enter into the depth of it, for the purpose of acquiring a genuine degree of understanding, especially regarding the constituent principles, and how these principles are rightly applied. In this manner, it is impossible to extrapolate a point of truth from a mass of disbelief.

And so, why fall into this delusion, and stand for any amount of time, before a thorn bush, expecting it to sprout figs? I think what the thorn bush has produced in this instance, is just another thorn.

Yes, just another thorn that sprouts out of the mass of disbelief designed to draw blood in all those who come in contact with it.

The intelligence that lurks in that mass of disbelief has a design criteria. What can I say that will cause pain to the People of Faith? And thus, out sprouts another thorn, and another, and another, and another, ad infinitum.

RCofield,

"Aside from substituting the word “truth” for “fact,” that’s pretty good recall on my part, wouldn’t you say?"

No, I wouldn't "say".

Aside from your mistaken belief that I used the word "truth", I never claimed that I used "intellectual" tools, as you mistakenly believe, as these are tools that most people use subconsciously in their every day lives.

You believed that I used the word "intellectual" because you wanted to believe that I used the word "intellectual", just as you believed that I used the word "truth" because you wanted to believe that I used the word "truth".

I'm guessing that your passive aggressive projection of intellectuality on others is a result of you being constantly mocked and denigrated for your superstitious beliefs.

That constant mocking and denigration probably creates feelings of inferiority and inadequacy in you, and I'm guessing that you attempt to combat those feelings by lashing out at others.

The very fact that you make the effort to attempt to "prove" that you are right is probably another symptom of your feelings of self doubt.

"You are now excused to go and clean the egg off your face."

These childish little "victory dances" to which you are prone are probably also manifestations of your feelings of inferiority and inadequacy, and appear to be attempts on your part to bolster your self esteem.

I hope they help.

"That which is conditioned by your prior assumptions."

In other words: No, you cannot.

"Then we are agreed that you consider yourself “bright.”"

Again, is that the theological "we"?

Do you get together with your three-in-one® imaginary gods to discuss me?

"As I am not a fundamentalist (defined as not much fun, too much damn, and no mental),..."

So, you believe that you're brighter than fundamentalists?

"...I do not watch the “700 Club” either."

So, you believe that you're brighter than people who watch the "700 Club"?

"Actually, I don’t watch much television at all."

So, you believe that you're brighter than people who watch television?

"Perhaps this is why you perceive yourself “brighter” than me?"

Huh?

"Are you a member of the “Brights,” Peregrine?"

Not that I am aware of, but feel free to believe that I am if you wish; I understand how simple it is for you to believe what you want to believe.

"But are you sure about that, Peregrine?"

Have you not looked up "doubt" in the dictionary yet?

"What makes you think I am worrying about it?"

The simple fact that you brought it up.

PEREGRINE,
RCofield said:

And as I recall you once gave me a rather long list of intellectual “tools” that you use to evaluate that which is presented to you as “truth.”"

You recall incorrectly; I've noticed that you tend to "recall" things as you believe they occurred, not as they actually occurred.

"Second, you probably should not assume that I use only experience when evaluating what is presented to me as fact. I use other tools, such as education, skepticism, extrapolation, common sense, critical thinking, Occam's Razor, the opinions of others, etc."

Can you tell me what I'm thinking right now?

I can't help it if you are not articulate enough to express yourself properly.

Indeed.

It might be on at the same time as the "700 Club" in your area; actually, considering where you live, the "700 Club" might be the only TV that you are legally allowed to watch.

I doubt it.

Yeah, well, don't worry about it then.

GOLDENEAGLES

Since Cornbread flew the coop, you might as well let me in on the secret.

Let's lay back and see if Cornbread makes another appearance. If not, maybe we can kick it around a little.

I take your use of the word "rightly" concerning cornbread handing me my head,(an idea that has some interesting Arabic overtones), to mean that the believer (you) and the Atheist (cornbread) have found a piece of common ground.

LOL. No, I was using the "handing you your head" idiom in the sense that it was often used before any of us knew what Jihad was.

As for "common ground," this is not an issue that Cornbread and I have ever discussed. If he doesn't engage you on it I would be happy to have a friendly discussion with you on the Christophanies and Christology of the Old Testament. It is a magnificent study.

GoldenEagles:

Triune God...three persons in one...indivisible...eternally existing...ring any bells?

RCofield:

I went back and reread the thread I alluded to (linked below). While it's true you did not specifically endorse ID, per se, you certainly spent a great deal of time arguing for an intelligent designer and against all of my (and others') objections to ID. It seems odd that you wouldn't just come out and declare yourself to be a 6-day creationist at the beginning of that discussion. Anyway, wasn't ID demonstrated to just be Creationism dressed in a new suit during the Dover, PA trial? Seems like one of those distinctions without a difference. In any case, my reasons for leaving the only other discussion we've engaged in remain the same: when you weren't trying to convince me that natural selection was an "abstract principle" or that the study of abiogenesis was somehow dependent on the theory of evolution or that selection was somehow random, you were offering opinion in place of scientific data and that I can get anywhere.

Go back in this discussion and check the context in which I first posed my question to GoldenEagles. Though I think it's a valid question for any theist, Christian or otherwise, who believes in divine revelation, divine command theory and/or demonic possession, I think it was particularly justified in his/her case.

Regarding the Apocalypse: You don't watch much John Hagee, Perry Stone, Jack Van Impe or Hal Lindsey do you?

One final rhetorical question: Who would you rather live next door to -- the most rabid secular humanist imaginable or Fred Phelps?

Have a good one.

http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/cal_thomas/2010/07/jesus_is_the_difference.html#comments

GoldenEagles,

This should make your day:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40151974/ns/us_news/

Hilarious.

RCofield says, "A word of warning here: CORNBREAD could very well rightly hand you your head on that one. We'll see."

Since Cornbread flew the coop, you might as well let me in on the secret.

I take your use of the word "rightly" concerning cornbread handing me my head,(an idea that has some interesting Arabic overtones), to mean that the believer (you) and the Atheist (cornbread) have found a piece of common ground.

RCofield,

"You really should read that which you “expurgate.”"

No, I really shouldn't.

"And as I recall you once gave me a rather long list of intellectual “tools” that you use to evaluate that which is presented to you as “truth.”"

You recall incorrectly; I've noticed that you tend to "recall" things as you believe they occurred, not as they actually occurred.

"Sounds like a person who fancies himself a thinker to me."

No, that is simply something that you have inferred, and that you now choose to believe.

"See above."

There's nothing to see.

"Sure you do."

Sure, I don't.

"Every thought you have ever had since your first thought has been conditioned by prior assumptions."

Can you tell me what I'm thinking right now?

"And you are failing to make the distinction between my thinking you are “bright” and my pointing out the evident fact that you consider yourself “bright.”"

I can't help it if you are not articulate enough to express yourself properly.

"Watch:"

[Well articulated observations on the human condition removed so as not to overtax the gentle reader. You're welcome.]

"‘Nuff said."

Indeed.

"Do you automatically presume I am not as “bright” as you think you are?"

No, I conclude that after I read your comments.

"Perhaps because his observations square nicely with what I have been telling you for months."

Perhaps because you both have been taught to, or have simply chosen to, believe in the same superstitious nonsense.

"Given that I don’t own a “magical book of magical sayings” and that I despise fundamentalism I can only conclude that you have me confused with someone else."

I didn't say that you actually owned the magical book of magical sayings that you quote from; for all I know, you just found it in a Motel 6.

"I’m sorry."

Why are you sorry?

"I don’t watch the “Simpsons.”"

It might be on at the same time as the "700 Club" in your area; actually, considering where you live, the "700 Club" might be the only TV that you are legally allowed to watch.

"Perhaps the fact that you do has something to do with your considering yourself “bright?”"

I doubt it.

"So…I still don’t know who this “jebus” character is that you keep referring to."

Yeah, well, don't worry about it then.

GOLDENEAGLES,

CORNBREAD_R2 says, "because I had the gall to point out what the Bible records about the actions of Jesus in the OT"

There is no direct reference to the Master Jesus Christ in the old Testament, at least in the situation we have been discussing. Where do you get the idea that he was there helping make these decisions?

A word of warning here: CORNBREAD could very well rightly hand you your head on that one.

We'll see.

CORNBREAD,

Part 1 of 2

From what I remember, we've only had one extended exchange in the past, on the subject of Intelligent Design. Over the course of several days I read as you banged on and on about how ID was logical, about how ID was self-evident, about how ID was being unfairly being treated by the scientists who do peer review for scientific journals. After demonstrating that you apparently didn't know much about either the scientific method or the theory of evolution -- and after repeatedly failing to provide any scientific data whatsoever supporting ID -- I stopped typing. Did you expect me to hang around indefinitely while you and ID caught up on the science?

Since this discussion began I've been accused of being a self-righteous hypocritical demagogue and a demonically-possessed loser with a "penchant for homicide".

Why?: because I had the gall to point out what the Bible records about the actions of Jesus in the OT and to ask how you could be sure he couldn't, or wouldn't, command such things again given sufficient reason.

CORNBREAD,

Part 2 of 2

Strangely, you seemed to think such a thing was an impossibility even though millions of Christians, people who share your "objective and absolute" source of morality, are eagerly looking forward to Jesus leading a bloodbath on the plains of Megiddo in the very near future.

I may be an unbeliever and my ethical system may be subjective, relativistic and eclectically derived, but at least I admit it and don't have to twist it into knots defending a deity whose existence must be taken on faith and who requires armies of theologians to apologize for him.

And the charge that God “requires” theologians to defend His character presumes that you (and others) are somehow in a position to accuse God. Such presumptiveness is absurd on the face of it. If God could be thus dethroned by mere creatures He would not be God.

If I was a saint and my behavior was beyond reproach you wouldn't be satisfied until I accepted Jesus as my personal lord and savior.

For reasons I've already detailed, that's not likely to happen.

PEREGRINE,

Actually, I find it quite amusing the you choose to believe that I do have a world-view, and that you also believe that I think that I am quite the "thinker".

You really should read that which you “expurgate.”

And as I recall you once gave me a rather long list of intellectual “tools” that you use to evaluate that which is presented to you as “truth.” Sounds like a person who fancies himself a thinker to me.

I have no idea where you got the idea that I think that I am quite the "thinker", as I'm fairly certain that I never wrote that, except, maybe, as an attempt to be ironic.

See above.

I do not have a world-view, and I am not as bright as you seem to think that I am.

Sure you do. Every thought you have ever had since your first thought has been conditioned by prior assumptions. And you are failing to make the distinction between my thinking you are “bright” and my pointing out the evident fact that you consider yourself “bright.” Watch:

No, I found it confusing from the very first time that someone tried to foist it on me. I was quite young at the time, but, apparently, I was not as stupid as the person who tried to foist it on me thought that I was.

I expurgate deliberately. It's subtle, so I can understand your confusion.

Because I am a riddle, wrapped in an enigma?

You went and looked up "expurgate" in the dictionary, didn't you?

Then why did you quote him?

The fact that typically, anywhere from 25 to 75 percent of your comments consists of quotes from your magical book of magical sayings, or from other fundamentalist books and fundamentalist authors, or from other fundamentalist Web sites and fundamentalist bloggers.

It's from the "Simpsons", Homer used it in a few episodes, as in, "I don't even believe in jebus".

CORNBREAD_R2 says, "because I had the gall to point out what the Bible records about the actions of Jesus in the OT"

There is no direct reference to the Master Jesus Christ in the old Testament, at least in the situation we have been discussing. Where do you get the idea that he was there helping make these decisions?

Looks like CORNBREAD has bailed out on us again. Why does he keep doing that? Why doesn't he just not engage if he is going to high-tail it outa here just when it gets interesting? -- RCofield

From what I remember, we've only had one extended exchange in the past, on the subject of Intelligent Design. Over the course of several days I read as you banged on and on about how ID was logical, about how ID was self-evident, about how ID was being unfairly being treated by the scientists who do peer review for scientific journals. After demonstrating that you apparently didn't know much about either the scientific method or the theory of evolution -- and after repeatedly failing to provide any scientific data whatsoever supporting ID -- I stopped typing. Did you expect me to hang around indefinitely while you and ID caught up on the science?

Since this discussion began I've been accused of being a self-righteous hypocritical demagogue and a demonically-possessed loser with a "penchant for homicide". Why?: because I had the gall to point out what the Bible records about the actions of Jesus in the OT and to ask how you could be sure he couldn't, or wouldn't, command such things again given sufficient reason. Strangely, you seemed to think such a thing was an impossibility even though millions of Christians, people who share your "objective and absolute" source of morality, are eagerly looking forward to Jesus leading a bloodbath on the plains of Megiddo in the very near future. To your credit, at least you didn't try to defend his actions by arguing, as did another theistic participant, that it was necessary for Jesus to slaughter children in order to save them; that killing them was an "act of mercy".

I may be an unbeliever and my ethical system may be subjective, relativistic and eclectically derived, but at least I admit it and don't have to twist it into knots defending a deity whose existence must be taken on faith and who requires armies of theologians to apologize for him. If I was a saint and my behavior was beyond reproach you wouldn't be satisfied until I accepted Jesus as my personal lord and savior. For reasons I've already detailed, that's not likely to happen. Consequently, I don't see much point in proceeding, but by all means, feel free to continue to discuss me in my absence. I'm comfortable with what I've already written.

RCofield,

"I don't."

Good.

"Actually, I find it quite amusing that you contend that you don't have a worldview but that you are quite the "thinker.""

Actually, I find it quite amusing the you choose to believe that I do have a world-view, and that you also believe that I think that I am quite the "thinker".

I have no idea where you got the idea that I think that I am quite the "thinker", as I'm fairly certain that I never wrote that, except, maybe, as an attempt to be ironic.

"If you don't have a worldview you are not....well, you get the picture."

But, you, apparently, do not get the picture.

I do not have a world-view, and I am not as bright as you seem to think that I am.

"Have you noticed that anything you don't agree with you deem it "morally reprehensible" by "expurgating" it? That does seem a strange thing for one to do when the mere mention of the word morality "automatically" triggers negative imagery in your head."

You went and looked up "expurgate" in the dictionary, didn't you?

No, I have not noticed that; I expurgate deliberately.

It's subtle, so I can understand your confusion.

"Why do you think you contradict yourself that way?"

Because I am a riddle, wrapped in an enigma?

"Not the last time I checked, no."

Then why did you quote him?

"What makes you think I need someone to tell me what to believe?"

The fact that typically, anywhere from 25 to 75 percent of your comments consists of quotes from your magical book of magical sayings, or from other fundamentalist books and fundamentalist authors, or from other fundamentalist Web sites and fundamentalist bloggers.

"I'm not familiar with this "jebus" character you keep referring to."

It's from the "Simpsons", Homer used it in a few episodes, as in, "I don't even believe in jebus".

"This may be why you find christianity confusing."

No, I found it confusing from the very first time that someone tried to foist it on me.

I was quite young at the time, but, apparently, I was not as stupid as the person who tried to foist it on me thought that I was.

PEREGRINE,

Perhaps what is interesting to him/her [CORNBREAD] is not absolutely identical to what is interesting to you.

Perhaps.

But based on his history on these threads it rather appears that he is an apologetically-challenged atheist who folds like a cheap suit when the Christians he engages don't disavow Christianity after one or two weak questions from him.

PEREGRINE,

What makes you believe that I think more astutely than christians?

I don't.

That's really sticking in your craw, isn't it?

LOL. Actually, I find it quite amusing that you contend that you don't have a worldview but that you are quite the "thinker." If you don't have a worldview you are not....well, you get the picture.

[boringly silly pontification expurgated]

Have you noticed that anything you don't agree with you deem it "morally reprehensible" by "expurgating" it? That does seem a strange thing for one to do when the mere mention of the word morality "automatically" triggers negative imagery in your head. Why do you think you contradict yourself that way?

So, is R. Albert Mohler Jr. now the source of all of your objective, absolute truth?

Not the last time I checked, no.

Who told you what to believe before he began telling you what to believe?

Who will come along next, to tell you to believe something different?

What makes you think I need someone to tell me what to believe?

Isn't your jebus just a little bit jealous of all of this?

I'm not familiar with this "jebus" character you keep referring to. This may be why you find christianity confusing.

RCofield,

"Looks like CORNBREAD has bailed out on us again. Why does he keep doing that? Why doesn't he just not engage if he is going to high-tail it outa here just when it gets interesting?"

Perhaps what is interesting to him/her is not absolutely identical to what is interesting to you.

RCofield,

"The two of you may find this interesting given Peregrine's insistence that he thinks (and that more astutely than Christians),..."

What makes you believe that I think more astutely than christians?

"...yet does not have a worldview."

That's really sticking in your craw, isn't it?

"This is from Dr. Mohler's most recent blog on his site:"

[boringly silly pontification expurgated]

So, is R. Albert Mohler Jr. now the source of all of your objective, absolute truth?

Who told you what to believe before he began telling you what to believe?

Who will come along next, to tell you to believe something different?

Isn't your jebus just a little bit jealous of all of this?

Looks like CORNBREAD has bailed out on us again. Why does he keep doing that? Why doesn't he just not engage if he is going to high-tail it outa here just when it gets interesting?

PETERHUFF & PEREGRINE SOLUS,

The two of you may find this interesting given Peregrine's insistence that he thinks (and that more astutely than Christians), yet does not have a worldview. This is from Dr. Mohler's most recent blog on his site:

To be human is to think, and to think is to operate within a worldview. Every individual operates out of a basic set of convictions about reality, truth, meaning, and how the world works. As thinking creatures, we create, perceive, absorb, and base our thinking upon certain intellectual assumptions that, in essence, allow the world to make sense to us.

There is nothing distinctively Christian about having a worldview. The very process of intellectual activity requires some framework, and no idea is independent of prior assumptions. As human beings, we can hardly begin each moment of intellectual activity without dependence upon assumptions that are, in essence, pre-philosophical. This is true for all human beings, regardless of the actual content and shape of their worldviews.--Dr. R. Albert Mohler

peterhuff,

"Er, PSolus, your world-view is showing."

Well, that can happen when one goes commando.

"Ayn Rand's Objectivism."

Yeah?

"Give me a few days to develop this world-view."

Um... Didn't Ayn Rand already do that?

"I'll take a stab at comparing a few similarities if I can between her and you."

Good luck with that.

"Picasso."

Um... yeah, Pablo.

Are you an artist?"

No, but Picasso was.

"Did you know that art tells a story through the ages?"

Are you sure that it wasn't the artists telling the story?

"It reflects a philosophy of life, and cubism the philosophy of rationalism, "a commitment to scientific perspective," to "the philosophy of the Enlightenment, of Rationalism" as per Nancy Pearcey, Saving Leonardo, p.131."

Are you sure that you're not thinking about Dan Brown?

"I'm not sure about Seuratian Pointillism, what it represents or the ideas being expressed by it."

Yeah, me neither.

Hi PSolus,

Well, I'm no atheist, but I can attest that most of the atrocities that I commit are committed in the name of things other than "Social Darwinism" and "Secular Humanism"; for example, in the name of Randian Objectivism, Picassoan Cubism, and Seuratian Pointillism.

Er, PSolus, your world-view is showing.

Ayn Rand's Objectivism. Give me a few days to develop this world-view. I'll take a stab at comparing a few similarities if I can between her and you.

Picasso. Are you an artist? Did you know that art tells a story through the ages? It reflects a philosophy of life, and cubism the philosophy of rationalism, "a commitment to scientific perspective," to "the philosophy of the Enlightenment, of Rationalism" as per Nancy Pearcey, Saving Leonardo, p.131.

I'm not sure about Seuratian Pointillism, what it represents or the ideas being expressed by it.

GoldenEagles,

"PSolus asks, “how did come to be such an expert on "homoerotic urges”?"

Yes, I'm quite interested in how you developed your world-view.

"My point of view is derived from my application of the Teachings of the Master Jesus Christ to the homosexual problem, which, as you know, begins with the homoerotic urge."

Which "teachings of the master" are most relevant to this area?

"The Teachings of the Master that are most relevant to this area are those illustrating A) the existence of demons, B) the havoc demons can inflict on the mind and emotions of man, C) the havoc demons can inflict upon the physical behavior of man, and D) the demonstrated need to set those so enslaved free from the demon influence."

But, what can the average person do?

"The admonishment to love one’s enemies, has no higher expression, in my view, than to recognize the source of the dark urges that drive man into Rebellion against God, and rather than railing at the enslaved, to make a conscientious effort to focus our attention on what the Master Jesus Christ himself points to as the root cause, to focus the Power of Light there, for the casting out of these forces of enslavement."

Do you have anything more that you can tell us about "demons"?

"Demons are at the root of all substantial urges towards Rebellion against the Laws of God. I have noted their influence in the case of Homosexuality and Atheism. Their influence is felt in the world of man in a variety of other ways as well. Organized crime, the porn industry, the drug trade, criminal gangs, and so forth."

Do you have a brochure that you can send me?

PSolus asks, “how did come to be such an expert on "homoerotic urges”?

My point of view is derived from my application of the Teachings of the Master Jesus Christ to the homosexual problem, which, as you know, begins with the homoerotic urge.

The Teachings of the Master that are most relevant to this area are those illustrating A) the existence of demons, B) the havoc demons can inflict on the mind and emotions of man, C) the havoc demons can inflict upon the physical behavior of man, and D) the demonstrated need to set those so enslaved free from the demon influence.

The admonishment to love one’s enemies, has no higher expression, in my view, than to recognize the source of the dark urges that drive man into Rebellion against God, and rather than railing at the enslaved, to make a conscientious effort to focus our attention on what the Master Jesus Christ himself points to as the root cause, to focus the Power of Light there, for the casting out of these forces of enslavement.

Demons are at the root of all substantial urges towards Rebellion against the Laws of God. I have noted their influence in the case of Homosexuality and Atheism. Their influence is felt in the world of man in a variety of other ways as well. Organized crime, the porn industry, the drug trade, criminal gangs, and so forth.

GoldenEagles,

If I may ask, how did come to be such an expert on "homoerotic urges"?

Cornbread_r2 says, “Let's just cut to the chase.”

Ok. Let’s talk about another thing the Homosexuals and Atheists have in common.

As to homosexuals, when they consider the origin of the homoerotic urge, they believe it to be a "natural" expression of not just their biological identity, but their spiritual identity, to the extent they can grasp that idea. But they are mistaken. The origin of the homoerotic urge is in the black heart of demonic presence residing on the astral plane. The homoerotic urge, as an insidiously sinister amalgamation of lower-order desire energy, well crafted for its purpose, is broadcast by the demon into the vulnerable astral body of the intended victim. If the victim identifies with it, and acts on it, the soul is then hooked, just a like a fish at the end of a strong nylon line. The hook is embedded in the central nervous system, via the feeling world, and at that point these homoerotic urges are nearly impossible to resist. When the demon tugs the line, the individual will feel that tug powerfully.

The individual becomes vulnerable to this demonic attack through a lengthy period of neglect when it comes to fulfilling its responsibilities to perform the rituals, prayers, devotions, and study regimens that are required to build up a strong forcefield of Light in the Aura.

On the other hand, when the Atheist considers the origin of the negative feelings that are associated with any effort to contemplate the Reality of God, they too believe these to be a "natural" expression of their biological identity. But they too are mistaken. The origin of this urge to Attack the Integrity of God is also in the black heart of demonic presence residing on the astral plane. The Anti-God urge, as an insidiously sinister amalgamation of lower-order desire energy, well crafted for its purpose, is broadcast by the demon into the vulnerable astral body of the intended victim. If the victim identifies with it, and acts on it, the soul is then hooked, just a like a fish at the end of a strong nylon line.

This individual as well, becomes vulnerable to this category of demonic attack through a lengthy period of neglect when it comes to fulfilling its responsibilities to perform the rituals, prayers, devotions, and study regimens that are required to build up a strong forcefield of Light in the Aura.

Yes, both the Homosexual, and the Atheist have these things in common. The long period of devotional neglect leading up to the state of enslavement. The state of ignorance indulged regarding the origin of these enslaving emotions. And the solution to their dilemma, which is to reach out to God for help in regaining their freedom from demonic manipulation.

Hi Cornbread,

You said,

I've written all I care to write here. If you need to characterize that as "cutting and running", so be it. I'll leave you to your victory lap.

This is what you did on the last thread in which we were engaged. You challenged us to give account, then when the thread ran dry you never followed up with the next link that we provided.

You want to pontificate what is and ought to be and when we challenge you to make sense of why your subjective opinion is valid, why it is true, why it corresponds to the way things really are, you 'cut and run.'

We want to have a meaningful dialog with you. We want to expose the underbelly of your belief to show the utter hopeless and helplessness of such a world-view, to go deep into the inner workings of the way you view the world, and we invite you to do the same with us. But it requires that one side is not left with the entire onus. We have asked you many questions that you have chosen to ignore, yet we have taken the time to address your issues.

Are you afraid that your world-view will be exposed for what it really is, a false pretense?

All those questions I asked, what did you respond to?

cornbread_r2 says, “God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit specifically targeted children. They weren't ‘collateral damage’”.

I admit that my position appears to be intellectually vulnerable on that point. However, if you look deeper, I think you will see why it is probably close to the truth, if not exactly right on the mark.

It seems to me, from reading the story at the link I supplied to you, that the Amalekites, as a tribal unit, had set themselves against God’s Purpose. And that they had built up a culture wholly devoted to the destruction of Israel. And that it was just a matter of time before they attacked again. And that a preemptive strike was required to guarantee the survival of Israel. A preemptive strike is appropriate in cases where you understand that the intention of your enemy is to totally annihilate you. The purpose for the strike was to eliminate that threat to Israel’s existence. That requires the destruction of the Amalekite tribe totally, not leaving anyone alive that could carry forward the agenda of Israel’s destruction. Obviously the Amalekites were into revenge. And it was moreover a very barbaric time. That means that all adults had to be put to the sword. If you did not kill them, they would kill you.

Of course, a tiny baby was of no threat, as far as I can see, but the question is, without parents, how could the child survive? In this regard, it was an act of mercy to end the life of the child quicky, as there would be no adult to care for it after the battle. If they were not put to death quickly, they would be left to die of starvation, or sun exposure, or what have you. That would have met the definition of cruelty for sure. So in this sense, the death of the children could be accurately considered not just as collateral damage, but an act of mercy.

From another angle, we might consider the possibility that the Amalekite children represented the reincarnated souls of previous members of the Amalekite culture who had attacked Israel a couple of centuries before. This could have been the judgment of the law against these souls, to receive in turn, what they themselves had delivered upon the Israelites during a previous time. Perhaps if you could read the akashic records, you would see that these very souls had slaughtered Israel’s children a couple of centuries before.

And of course this is an important point in the current abortion debate, where mothers who murder their children in the womb, they need to know, that when they reincarnate, they must suffer the act of murder themselves, as the judgment of the law. Not strictly as a punishment, but as a lesson. The idea is, when the soul faces the temptation to murder again, which it certainly will, it will have this lesson embedded in the soul fabric, where it knows, if it strikes, it too will be struck down. And thus the hand raised in anger, is lowered as an act of self-preservation.

Addendum to the foregoing: Homosexuals and Atheists have this in common, that they have allowed demonic influences to lean on their feeling world. In this case, you can see the origin of the double standards which Atheists indulge. When presented with the truth, their feeling world all of sudden becomes filled with disdain, contempt, and mistrust. Where does that come from? Certainly this is not a natural product of a biological mechanism that God our Father has created as a platform for the redemption of the soul. No sir. It is an outside unnatural force of demonic origin. That is why you never get anywhere arguing with an Atheist. In this regard, I am waiting for Cornbread_r2 to stand up and defend Karl Marx. When he does it, we will know for sure who is really speaking.

Rcofield says, “And history tells us with equal certitude that Atheists are often more than willing to commit atrocities in the name of Social Darwinism and Secular Humanism. In point of fact, the atrocity of 50 million aborted children in this country since 1973 is a chilling testimony to that very reality.”

Indeed, let’s not forget the record of what Atheists do when they really get into power, as exemplified by the swath of global destruction perpetrated by the Atheists through their utopian organization called “Communism”. See the Black Book of Communism. The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression

From the Amazon review:

Communism did kill, Courtois and his fellow historians demonstrate, with ruthless efficiency: 25 million in Russia during the Bolshevik and Stalinist eras, perhaps 65 million in China under the eyes of Mao Zedong, 2 million in Cambodia, millions more Africa, Eastern Europe, and Latin America--an astonishingly high toll of victims. This freely expressed penchant for homicide, Courtois maintains, was no accident, but an integral trait of a philosophy, and a practical politics, that promised to erase class distinctions by erasing classes and the living humans that populated them. Courtois and his contributors document Communism's crimes in numbing detail, moving from country to country, revolution to revolution. The figures they offer will likely provoke argument, if not among cliometricians then among the ideologically inclined. So, too, will Courtois's suggestion that those who hold Lenin, Trotsky, and Ho Chi Minh in anything other than contempt are dupes, witting or not, of a murderous school of thought--one that, while in retreat around the world, still has many adherents. A thought-provoking work of history and social criticism, The Black Book of Communism fully merits the broadest possible readership and discussion. -- Gregory McNamee

Cornbread_r2 does give us an illustration of this penchant for homocide that actually resides in the heart of every Atheist (it is an ever-present potential awaiting to be awakened,and when it is awakened they have no moral structure, no moral defense, to keep it from being expressed) where, when given several opportunities to speak out against the current holocaust of the unborn, he remains silent, like his lips are zippered together, the pull broken off and thrown away, and the zipper is glued shut with a superglue of unknown origin.

O, but how they speak so freely when they have God to ridicule.

RCofield,

"Yes, Peregrine, we are aware that you are an utterly sensory creature whose barely coherent abstraction has produced in you a rather blurred concept of reality."

Thank you.

While I'm taking today off (Veteran'/Armistice Day), I have a couple of atrocities penciled in for tomorrow, so perhaps I'll commit them in the name of Utter Sensory Creaturism.

I also have a particularly heinous heathenistic atrocity (I can't call it an atheistic atrocity due to union regulations and potential trademark infringement) scheduled for the weekend, which I can commit in the name of Barely Coherent Abstractionism.

By the way, is that the theological "we" that you are using?

Has the imaginary triumvirate become an imaginary quadumvirate?

Are your fellow travelers aware of your promotion?

PEREGRINE,

Well, I'm no atheist, but I can attest that most of the atrocities that I commit are committed in the name of things other than "Social Darwinism" and "Secular Humanism"; for example, in the name of Randian Objectivism, Picassoan Cubism, and Seuratian Pointillism.

Yes, Peregrine, we are aware that you are an utterly sensory creature whose barely coherent abstraction has produced in you a rather blurred concept of reality.

RCofield,

"And history tells us with equal certitude that Atheists are often more than willing to commit atrocities in the name of Social Darwinism and Secular Humanism."

Well, I'm no atheist, but I can attest that most of the atrocities that I commit are committed in the name of things other than "Social Darwinism" and "Secular Humanism"; for example, in the name of Randian Objectivism, Picassoan Cubism, and Seuratian Pointillism.

CORNBREAD,

[to GOLDENEAGLES] Reread your Samuel. God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit specifically targeted children. They weren't "collateral damage". Own it.

If you read the link provided on God's dealing with the Amalekites you are aware that the utter destruction commanded by God was calculated to utter destroy them as a nation because they had specifically targeted the old, the sick, and the weak (i.e. children) in their repeated and merciless attacks on the Israelites, their own kindred! The Divine punishment was exactly fitting to the human crime. Justice was served.

Further, does not abortion "specifically target children," and that in their most vulnerable state? Yet you have been given every opportunity to state your opposition to the practice of abortion and have failed to do so.

If you do not oppose abortion without reservation, then you should "own" abortion. Otherwise you are guilty of holding a double-standard.

Either way, your entire approach to this question conflates Divine judgment and human atrocities.

CORNBREAD,

I'm a non-believer. IMO the Bible is a mess of contradiction from start to finish. I endorse the words of a Jesuit priest whose name sadly eludes me: "The Bible can be tortured into saying anything."

Cornbread, I think the quote you are referring to was a comment aimed at the ones "torturing" the bible, not a statement claiming the bible is a "mess of contradiction from start to finish." This is probably a good insight into why you can't make sense of the bible.

While I'm relieved that none of you apparently would either, history tells me that other theists have been more than willing to assume the role of instruments of a god's righteous judgment.

And history tells us with equal certitude that Atheists are often more than willing to commit atrocities in the name of Social Darwinism and Secular Humanism. In point of fact, the atrocity of 50 million aborted children in this country since 1973 is a chilling testimony to that very reality.

Of course, you find that "irrelevant," which may well place you in the same category as those "theists" you protest against.

I've written all I care to write here. If you need to characterize that as "cutting and running", so be it. I'll leave you to your victory lap.

I hardly see where my challenge of your motive and my lucid and well-supported response to your question would warrant the response from you that "we're done here." Did you think you had posed an unanswerable question?

GoldenEagles,

Can you please remind me what, exactly, I am to use my various orifices for again?

The reason that I ask, is that I just used one of my orifices (actually, I ended up using two of my orifices, but the use of the second orifice was purely reflexive, and incidental to the act of using the originally intended orifice, and I'm guessing that the question of reflexive, incidental, use of an orifice may well require additional study and reflection on your part) and I want to ensure that I used said orifice in a just and moral manner.

Any light that you can shed on this subject will be greatly appreciated.

PeterHuff, RCofield, GoldenEagles:

Let's just cut to the chase.

I'm a non-believer. IMO the Bible is a mess of contradiction from start to finish. I endorse the words of a Jesuit priest whose name sadly eludes me: "The Bible can be tortured into saying anything."

I don't believe that the Jesus of Nazareth portrayed in the Bible existed. I don't believe the Great Flood, the Exodus or the Canaanite conquest ever occurred. (I don't need to believe in these things in order to discuss the possible ramifications of others' belief of them.) The basis for my opinions on these matters is evidential and can found in all the usual places you've likely been warned against. In the event that you're feeling spunky and would prefer a more energetic and sustained dialogue with folks (including some Christians) who are far better foils than I, you might try:

http://commonsenseatheism.com/

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/

http://unreasonablefaith.com/

Finally, my ethics are derived from my long-standing participation as a member of an evolved social species. As imperfect and relativistic and subjective as they may be, I can assure you that I somehow manage to keep my lies and thefts to a minimum and that my neighbors can sleep easily at night knowing that I would not kill them or their ox because I earnestly believed an entity from outside time and space commanded it. While I'm relieved that none of you apparently would either, history tells me that other theists have been more than willing to assume the role of instruments of a god's righteous judgment.

I've written all I care to write here. If you need to characterize that as "cutting and running", so be it. I'll leave you to your victory lap.

Thanks

CORNBREAD,

Part 1 of 2

My feelings on the abortion issue are completely irrelevant to the discussion we were having, but I can understand why you would bring it up. It deflects the discussion away from uncomfortable territory for Christian apologists.

And no Christian apologist worth his salt is “uncomfortable” with Divine acts of judgment. It should be noted here that you were given a link that does a relatively decent job of dealing with God’s judgment of the Amalekites, to which you have not yet responded.

If you were absolutely convinced that God was speaking to you and commanding you to kill your neighbor's gay child, would you? (This assumes that you've ruled out mental illness, hallucination, demonic deception and all other possible causes that might make this a false revelation.)

No rational christian could ever claim to have received such “revelation” for the following reasons:

First, we have the complete revelation of the will of God in the person of Jesus Christ.

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

AND:

Heb. 1:1 Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. 3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high…

Said revelation of God in the Person of Jesus Christ is recorded in the closed canon of the 66 books of the Bible, hence any such claim of “revelation” from God to “kill your neighbor's gay child” would be a false claim of revelation.

CORNBREAD,

Part 2 of 2

Secondly, any number of the clear teachings of Christ himself would necessarily preclude such an atrocity. For example:

Mt 7:12 So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

Lu 10:27 And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.”

Mt 26:52 Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword.”

Joh 18:36 Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.”

Hence, anyone who commits an atrocity in the name of God is doing so in direct disobedience to the unmistakable commands of Christ Himself.

And thirdly, taking judgment into our own hands is strictly forbidden:

Romans 12:16 Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be conceited. 17 Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. 18 If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. 19 Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”

The execution of Divine justice and judgment is the jurisdiction of God alone, and anyone who claims revelation from God for the execution of such does so in clear disobedience to the Word of God.

GoldenEagles:

I sense you're embarrassed by some of which is in your Bible, but please don't use that as an excuse to presume to know my position on the issue of abortion.

Reread your Samuel. God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit specifically targeted children. They weren't "collateral damage". Own it.

I have no better way of evaluating someone than by their actions. We're done.

Hi Cornbread,

RCofield, please forgive me for cutting in here, but Cornbread is trying to bypass the moral argument, all the while this is where his underlying attack is based. He is making ethical opinions based on what, as he accuses God of being unethical?

My feelings on the abortion issue are completely irrelevant to the discussion we were having, but I can understand why you would bring it up. It deflects the discussion away from uncomfortable territory for Christian apologists.

You are making all kinds of value judgments. What is your foundation for such judgments, such as calling God a liar. This is the underlying question - your authority and its subjective/objective nature in regards to truth. Your subjective opinion is ruling out what the Bible says over and over again, such as 'The Lord said,' 'God spoke,' 'it is written,' 'the Word of God,' 'the word of the Lord,' etc.

The fact remains, however, that even if there had never been any abortions performed in this country the Bible would still chronicle what a perfect, all-loving deity -- the purported source of our morality -- is reported to have commanded of others in the past.

There you go again with your passing judgment. What makes you the ultimate expert and judge on whether the Bible is true? Time after time you pull off these qualitative statements. Where does your sense of 'good' or 'better' or 'best' come from? Can you answer that?

If all you have is subjective opinion to go by then why is your 'better' than mine?
Let's bring in the tanks.

I readily concede that the creator and sustainer of our universe is entitled to do whatever he wants to his creation.

No you didn't. You fought it and continue to fight it all the way. You are trying to take the place of God in deciding what is and is not good. This has been mankind's downfall; its fight of the fittest, its fight to the death.

What you are fighting for is the 'right' to dictate the power play. You want your opinion, and those like minded, to call the shots. Is it objective? Does it have an objective source? Then why is it anything more than your preference, and why is your preference the one that 'should' decide what is best?

My bet is that you side-step the real issue again, and again, while you point the finger to others.

What is so significant about the foundation that your opinions rest on?

You see, an objective reference, an ultimate, final source and measure is necessary to make sense of anything, because in making sense of things you are making all kinds of value judgments - based on what, a bottomless, invisible nothing?

You want others to bow down to your sense of values - ha.

Hi Cornbread,

What do you mean, 'Over and out?' I seem to recall you bailed out last time the going got tough with RCofield on another thread.

You said,

If God's will was so easily discernible from scripture there wouldn't be more than 30,000 Christian denominations with significant enough theological differences to prevent them from worshiping God together in the same building.

There may be disagreements on Scripture but nevertheless if certain major doctrines are compromised God is denied. I can have fellowship with many believers that do not hold to some of the minor doctrinal differences that I do across the denominational spectrum.

For every Bible scholar you can produce interpreting any given passage I can likely produce at least one other arguing a different interpretation/context/heuristic.

No doubt, but the question becomes are they reading their own thoughts into the Scriptures or taking God's thoughts out of the Scriptures. Is the interpretation in compliance with the rules of hermeneutics?

Are you of the opinion that a correct interpretation of Scripture is possible or impossible? If impossible then how are you able to come up with the right interpretation of so much that you make evaluations on in everyday life?

IIRC, there are currently at least four radically different portraits of an historically-based Jesus not to mention several mythology-based ones.

Please list them and give me your sources.

Even if you've been able to survey and exhaustively investigate all of these differences, read primary scriptural sources (which are not currently extant) in their original languages and are intimately acquainted with the cultural practices, philosophy and psychology of ancient Semitic peoples, Biblical interpretation would still come down to a subjective decision on your part.

Over 5700 Greek manuscript copies with Greek being the common language of the period used in this part of the world. 9000 other language manuscripts. What else comes close in the preservation of ancient writings?

As for your red herring of a subjective interpretation, you discount that an objective reading can be found from the Scriptures?

Most Christian apologists with whom I'm familiar, including Plantinga and Craig, will ultimately decide between conflicting, irresolvable interpretations based upon their feelings -- on personal revelation.

Scripture is our ultimate objective source. These interpretations are based on that objective source. What is the ultimate source of your conjecture based on?

You may feel that your beliefs are based on objective, absolute truth. Millions of other Christians would disagree -- as I'm sure your continuing exchange with GoldenEagles will confirm.

I'm not sure how far off base we are. He still needs to answer my questions regarding father/mother.

cornbread_r2 says, “My feelings on the abortion issue are completely irrelevant to the discussion we were having ...”

The point Rcofield was making, and I believe he made it quite artfully, is that you are standing on what you believe to be a mountain top of virtue, waving the flag of righteousness, while under your feet, are the dead and decomposing bodies of 50 million plus innocent American citizens, and while supporting the very processes by which this mountain of secular virtue is made ever higher, day by day, that from these lofty heights, you are reaching back into the dim past, to an event for which we have the most sketchy information, and trying to find fault with God himself, over a situation which fits into the category of collateral damage in wartime. This appears to me to be a case of monumental and mind-numbing hypocrisy on your part.

The morality of Christian Believers would allow for the life of these 50 million to have continued. Your morality demands their death.

RCofield:

An "entire nation is standing silent"? Really? Where have I been?

My feelings on the abortion issue are completely irrelevant to the discussion we were having, but I can understand why you would bring it up. It deflects the discussion away from uncomfortable territory for Christian apologists.

The fact remains, however, that even if there had never been any abortions performed in this country the Bible would still chronicle what a perfect, all-loving deity -- the purported source of our morality -- is reported to have commanded of others in the past.

I readily concede that the creator and sustainer of our universe is entitled to do whatever he wants to his creation. I asked my question of the other participants in an effort to gauge their willingness to cooperate should God command the same of them in the future. Feel free, by the way, to take a stab at answering the same question if you'd care to. For convenience I'll repeat it below.

If you were absolutely convinced that God was speaking to you and commanding you to kill your neighbor's gay child, would you? (This assumes that you've ruled out mental illness, hallucination, demonic deception and all other possible causes that might make this a false revelation.)

(Please note that since God has commanded similar things in the past, I don't think you can claim that such a thing is an impossibility.)

cornbread_r2,

The fact remains: God (with Jesus, meek and mild, standing alongside) ordered the slaughter of children. I find it chilling that you and others could ever countenance such as act. That you can tells me that it is indeed possible for the same to occur today, given enough time to massage the proper "context".

Do you find it chilling that an entire nation stands silent while we have "massaged the proper context" to slaughter 50 million unborn children in their mother's wombs over the last 40 years?

cornbread_r2 says, “The alleged offense occurred centuries before the retribution.”

In regards to the question of how God, and Israel, dealt with the Amalekites, this is an example of how important it is to understand a situation’s context.

This is a good article on the whole situation - God's cruelty to the Amalekites 1 Sam 15:3

Please read that, and come back and tell me if you still have the same concerns.

GoldenEagles:

The alleged offense occurred centuries before the retribution. Even if it had occurred just days before, infants could hardly have been guilty of anything.

The fact remains: God (with Jesus, meek and mild, standing alongside) ordered the slaughter of children. I find it chilling that you and others could ever countenance such as act. That you can tells me that it is indeed possible for the same to occur today, given enough time to massage the proper "context".

cornbread_r2 wants to apply this observation, "I assumed you are a Christian who believes the Bible and the many instances recorded there where God did, in fact, command his people to kill their neighbors." to the old testament situation described in 1 Samuel 15:2-3.

I will expand the context to get better sense of what is going on in this situation:

1 Samuel 15:1-4

1 And Samuel said unto Saul, Jehovah sent me to anoint thee to be king over his people, over Israel: now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the words of Jehovah.
2 Thus saith Jehovah of hosts, I have marked that which Amalek did to Israel, how he set himself against him in the way, when he came up out of Egypt.
3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
4 And Saul summoned the people, and numbered them in Telaim, two hundred thousand footmen, and ten thousand men of Judah.

I would first note that you have gone very far afield from your original question, “If you were absolutely convinced that God was speaking to you and commanding you to kill your neighbor's gay child, would you?” To which I answered, that it was impossible for God to give such a command, and I explained why.

That original question was targeted at the decision of a private individual, sort of an average, or perhaps above average in PeterHuff’s case, Christian believer of the modern era, who is clearly not an anointed prophet. This old testament scenario is very different.

This situation involved a chosen PROPHET who has state responsibilities. The Old Testament Prophets are a very unique class of individuals. I don’t believe we have people alive today in that class of individuals who had the authority to anoint kings and give them direct counsel from on high. Moreover, this is a military situation, where an enemy of Israel, namely “Amalek” has done something grievous, that requires retribution, something like Al Qaeda’s attack on the World Trade Center towers I suppose, though I do not know, as it does not say here, and I am not a student of this history.

Further analysis would depend on what “Amalek” had done. If you want to research that, and come back with that information, then we could evaluate whether the directive (from on high) to wipe them out was within the framework of the moral order of that time.

GoldenEagles,

"God is all-knowing, all-wise, and all-powerful. Nevertheless, the Bible would have to be impractically large if every technological development had to be foretold."

If he/she is so all-knowing, all-wise, and all-powerful, then why didn't he/she just create a bunch of 42 Terabyte memory sticks and a PC with a decent operating system while he/she was creating stones, twigs, butterflies, cockroaches, mountains, oceans, planets, stars, comets, streams, clouds, dinosaurs, bears, etc.?

Psolus asks, “Why did your father/mother god not document how to properly tag HTML hyperlinks back when he/she was writing his/her journal? Was he/she not aware of the future development of the Internet?”

God is all-knowing, all-wise, and all-powerful. Nevertheless, the Bible would have to be impractically large if every technological development had to be foretold. Besides, there are certain divisions of labor built into the human race. Some people are meant to be the explorers and inventors. If everything was foretold, there would be nothing for these people to explore or invent.

If I'm praying and receive a thought that I believe is from God and it goes against His written revelation, like an individual murdering another, then I know it is not from God. -- PeterHuff

If God's will was so easily discernible from scripture there wouldn't be more than 30,000 Christian denominations with significant enough theological differences to prevent them from worshiping God together in the same building. For every Bible scholar you can produce interpreting any given passage I can likely produce at least one other arguing a different interpretation/context/heuristic. IIRC, there are currently at least four radically different portraits of an historically-based Jesus not to mention several mythology-based ones. Even if you've been able to survey and exhaustively investigate all of these differences, read primary scriptural sources (which are not currently extant) in their original languages and are intimately acquainted with the cultural practices, philosophy and psychology of ancient Semitic peoples, Biblical interpretation would still come down to a subjective decision on your part. Most Christian apologists with whom I'm familiar, including Plantinga and Craig, will ultimately decide between conflicting, irresolvable interpretations based upon their feelings -- on personal revelation.

You may feel that your beliefs are based on objective, absolute truth. Millions of other Christians would disagree -- as I'm sure your continuing exchange with GoldenEagles will confirm.

Thanks for responding. Over and out.

peterhuff asks, “how do you get the bold script to appear on the posts?”

The text you want to appear as bold, you bracket with HTML “bold” tags.

<b>text</b>

It would look like this in the comment box:

<b>I want this sentence to be bold.</b>

It would like this when previewed, and finally displayed:

I want this sentence to be bold.

Credit goes to Cornbread_R2's use of the blockquote tag to trigger in me the realization that this blog comment system allows for the use of a limited number of html tags. (a feature not advertised as far as I can see)

peterhuff,

http://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_font_style.asp

GoldenEagle, how do you get the bold script to appear on the posts?

That was supposed to be:

Also, why did he/she allow Netscape to introduce the true evil into the world: The blink tag?

GoldenEagles,

"It is a matter of freewill whether I will simply assume I know how to do it, or look for additional information. In this case I assumed I knew how to do it. And I did not check functionality in the preview pane either. Truly, assumptions are barriers to divine attunement. I apologize for any inconvenience this oversight may have caused."

But you did not answer my question: Why did your father/mother god not document how to properly tag HTML hyperlinks back when he/she was writing his/her journal?

Was he/she not aware of the future development of the Internet?

Did it come as a complete surprise to him/her?

Also, why did he/she allow Netscape to introduce the true evil into the world: The tag?

Just How Central is the Subject of
Demon Possession, and the Casting
out of Demons, to the Teachings
of the Master Jesus Christ? - Part 5

Until a particular branch of the Christian Religion can fulfill the promise of the Master set forth in John 14:12, no one, in any of those branches, has any basis on which to judge the validity of any other branch. And this goes to bad mouthing any other religious tradition as well. Reach the level of Mastery which the Master Jesus Christ promised to give his disciples as recorded in John 14:12.

When you do that, from that level of wisdom only, can you offer constructive commentary in regards to the practices of other branches of the Christian Community, and other religious traditions as well.

Who can doubt this fact, that we are in the situation we find ourselves today, because Christians have not even grasped this very simple logic based on probably the most important promise the Master Jesus Christ ever uttered.

Note: That means you cannot even bad-mouth the Jewish Faith. I know that there are some Christians who HATE the members of the Jewish Faith, because their forefathers were behind the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. They believe that gives them license. But they are mistaken.

That hatred comes from the aforementioned demonic influences. And it makes these Christians into the most egregious hypocrites. They have not mastered the belief structure that the Master Jesus Christ set forth that would enable them to do the works that he did, yet they think they have license to badmouth the Jewish people. Truly, this is the case of pot calling the kettle black. In other words, these Christians are in a state of rebellion, through their demon alliances, against key aspects of the Master’s teaching, which robs them of the capacity to anchor the necessary belief structure that would enable them to fulfill the Master’s promise. In this regard, you have one group of souls who refuse to heed the Master’s teaching, throwing stones at another group of souls who refuse to head the Master’s teaching.

This note does not imply that I see this kind of behavior in any person on this forum. It was just something that needed to be said at this point in this series of statements on the subject of the Master’s teaching on the casting our of demons.

Just How Central is the Subject of
Demon Possession, and the Casting
out of Demons, to the Teachings
of the Master Jesus Christ? - Part 4

If there is anyone who takes offense at my reference below to a catholic source for the expertly crafted synopsis of the Sodom story, I would say, first off, I am not a member of the Catholic communion.

However, I am committed to this truth, that there are good people, and devoted people, in every branch of the Christian community, be it Orthodox, Catholic, or Protestant.

I would moreover say, that the force that divides the Christian Communities, is the same demonic force that has enslaved homosexuals.

These demons lean upon the astral body (the feeling world) of Protestants, for example, with a strong quality of contempt and disdain whenever they confront the Catholic tradition, or the Orthodox, or even Islam as another example, becoming all of sudden puffed it with PRIDE regarding the supposed supremacy of the Protestant tradition. Well, we know who is the father of pride. And we know that pride goeth before the fall.

Therefore, this is the lesson for you. If you have one smidgeon of disdain in your feeling world for another part of the Christian Community, you have a companion of darkness right beside you, who is leaning on your feeling world using you as a pawn to further the bitter fruit of division within the Body of God..

And that goes to one of the primary reasons why the Christian Community cannot fulfill the promise the Master Jesus Christ recorded in John 14:12.

The Christian Community, as a whole, remains powerless to stem the onward march of the forces of darkness on this planet to victory because of these alliances with darkness. Yes, they indulge alliances with the demon world themselves, in many subtle ways. All of which, if they look closely, draw them into various states of rebellion against the Teachings of the Master Jesus Christ himself.

You cannot fulfill the promise of the Master (John 14:12) if you harbor demon supported points of rebellion in your feeling world, and mind. If you harbor demon supported points of rebellion in your feeling world, and mind, you will not be able to anchor the Light necessary to Cast out Demons.

This is the bottom line. The Light that would cast out the Demon, must flow through you. In answer to your calls, for the casting out of demons, or for anything important, the Master Jesus sends forth the light of freedom, from his sacred heart, but it must flow through you. The transmisison pathway for this light to flow must be cleared.

Hyperlink Correction

Psolus says, "perhaps your mother/father god should have included instructions on how to properly tag hyperlinks in your bible."

It is a matter of freewill whether I will simply assume I know how to do it, or look for additional information. In this case I assumed I knew how to do it. And I did not check functionality in the preview pane either. Truly, assumptions are barriers to divine attunement. I apologize for any inconvenience this oversight may have caused.

Corrections

1. This is the source of the list of scriptural references included in Part 1.

2. This is the link to the good synopis of the Sodom and Lot story included in Part 2.

To open these links in a new window, right click, and choose open in new window.

Note: For the benefit of others who might run into this technical difficulty, if you have a hyper link in your post, and you are copying and pasting your comment from a world processor - in the preview box, replace all the quote marks in your link tag with the ones that are produced inside of the comment edit box using the shift-dbl-quote key.

GoldenEagles,

Perhaps your mother/father god should have included instructions on how to properly tag hyperlinks in your bible.

Or, wasn't he aware of the future development of the Internet when you wrote his journal?

Just How Central is the Subject of
Demon Possession, and the Casting
out of Demons, to the Teachings
of the Master Jesus Christ? - Part 3

There are a few things that we should consider in regards to the foregoing story which is probably the most important example of the Master casting out demons. The story has many important elements.

First, the link between the demons and the swine is important, signifying their propensity, that is, the propensity of both, to dwell in filth, and to be quite content in so doing. As we know, a central feature of the demonic influence in terms of the state of homosexual enslavement, is this transmitted compulsion to compel the victim to surround the primary male sexual organ in filth.

Second, the fact that the demons, once the Master hurled them into the bodies of the swine, could then compel the herd of swine to commit suicide, is another important commentary on the homosexual dilemma, as this is a condition of enslavement that destroys the soul. Again, through the injection of the poison of God-Hatred, the demonic influence causes the soul to progressively hold God in disdain and contempt. And that destroys the soul fabric. As the soul takes "pride" in its state of enslavement we see how appropriate it is to look at this as a state of spiritual suicide. In this regard, the Biblical Teaching that pride goeth before the fall, should be persistantly juxtaposed to every homosexual pride parade.

Third, this demonstrated demon/swine link is also important in terms of giving us a symbolic representation of the actual domain of soul death, which is, in the waters. The feeling world is commonly associated with the water element (fire, air, water, earth). Fire equates to spirit, Air equates to mind, water equates to feeling, and earth equates to material matter. The demon influence enters through the feeling world, which is most typically referred to as the astral body.

Just How Central is the Subject of
Demon Possession, and the Casting
out of Demons, to the Teachings
of the Master Jesus Christ? - Part 2

I would like to quote one of the referenced events recorded in the Bible where the Master Jesus Christ is casting out demons. I believe this recorded event is particularly relevant to the homosexual subject area, because it involved TWO MEN who are doing violence to everyone who passes by them. This reference to violence hearkens back to the Old Testament Story (Genesis 19) where God sent two angels into Sodom, in preparation for its destruction, wherein Lot gave them refuge, and where the homosexuals later attacked the house with the idea of dragging the angels out onto the street to have sex with them. A good synopsis of this story you can find (here).

The Story of the Master Jesus Christ
Casting Demons out of two men, and
sending them into a herd of swine.

(Matthew 8: 23-34)

23 And when he was entered into a ship, his disciples followed him.
24 And, behold, there arose a great tempest in the sea, insomuch that the ship was covered with the waves: but he was asleep.
25 And his disciples came to him, and awoke him, saying, Lord, save us: we perish.
26 And he saith unto them, Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith? Then he arose, and rebuked the winds and the sea; and there was a great calm.
27 But the men marvelled, saying, What manner of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him!
28 And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes, there met him two possessed with devils, coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass by that way.
29 And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?
30 And there was a good way off from them an herd of many swine feeding.
31 So the devils besought him, saying, If thou cast us out, suffer us to go away into the herd of swine.
32 And he said unto them, Go. And when they were come out, they went into the herd of swine: and, behold, the whole herd of swine ran violently down a steep place into the sea, and perished in the waters.
33 And they that kept them fled, and went their ways into the city, and told every thing, and what was befallen to the possessed of the devils.
34 And, behold, the whole city came out to meet Jesus: and when they saw him, they besought him that he would depart out of their coasts.

Just How Central is the Subject of
Demon Possession, and the Casting
out of Demons, to the Teachings
of the Master Jesus Christ? - Part 1

Everyone would be greatly surprised, even me, to have their memory refreshed in this regard. I did a google search on these keywords: Jesus cast out demons. I found that this subject is pervasive throughout the gospels. I was quite surprised. I knew Jesus was known for casting out demons. But I had forgotten the true extent and importance of this aspect of his ministry. I found this list of scripture on the web:

Matthew:

4:23-24 All Galilee, Synagogues(vs.23)
8:14-17 Peter's house (vs. 14)
8:28-33 Seashore (vs. 32)
9:32-33 Outside (vs. 32)
10:7-8 Everywhere (vs. 7)
12:15,22 Great multitudes (vs. 15)
15:22-28 Coasts (vs. 22)
17:14-21 Multitude (vs. 14)

Mark:

1:23-27 Synagogues (vs. 23)
1:32-34 Door-House of Simon and Andrew (vs. 33)
1:39-41 Synagogues, all Galilee (vs. 39)
3:9-15 Small ship (vs. 9)
5:2-20 Out of ship (vs. 2)
6:10-15 House (vs. 10)
7:24-30 House (vs. 24)
9:14-27 Multitude (vs. 14)
9:33,39 House (vs. 33)

Luke:

4:33-36 Synagogue (vs. 33)
4:38-41 Simon's house (vs. 38)
6:17-19 Plain (vs. 17)
8:1-3 Every city and village (vs. 1)
8:26-39 Seashore (vs. 26)
9:37-42 Down from the hill (vs. 37)
11:14-22 Synagogue (vs. 15)
13:11-17 Synagogue (vs. 14)

(source)

The Teachings of the Master Jesus Christ have always been considered the solid rock for the Children of God to stand on in the midst of the raging sea of materialist delusion, chaos, and strife. It is no less of a solid rock in this area. Though this area of the teaching could be considered to be perhaps one of the most advanced areas.

Finishing up your thoughts Cornbread,

CB: "You seem to be saying that you'll only accept God's direct, special revelation if it happens to agree with your standard of what is reasonable and non-contradictory."

My standard, no, I'm saying that I won't go against it if it contradicts His standard.

If I'm praying and receive a thought that I believe is from God and it goes against His written revelation, like an individual murdering another, then I know it is not from God.

"Thou shalt not kill."

God's word is true regardless of how I accept it. You keep failing to take into consideration who He is addressing and the circumstances behind His actions.

CB: "While I'm relieved to see that, how is that not more than a little presumptuous and relativistic?"

Presumptuous when you fail to take into account rules of hermeneutics, and yes, sometimes it is very relativistic to the situation.

Hi Cornbread,

How could I be convinced of something that goes against His written will? -- PeterHuff

CB: "Because Jesus has always been God."

Alright, I should have said, and did in my explanation, something that CONTRADICTS His written revelation, the word of truth. God is not a liar, He does not tell you one thing as being true and then the exact opposite elsewhere.

CB: "Because the OT is part of his revealed written word."

The Old Covenant is obsolete. It was a covenant primarily for the Jews. Through it God revealed His holiness, purity and intolerance of sin as well as the penalty for it. The sacrificial system was done away with in 70A.D. It was no longer needed. A Perfect sacrifice and atonement for sin had made a way in which any tribe or tongue could be brought into fellowship with God eternally. The temple was destroyed as God's judgment against a disobedient and sinful people who would not follow His ways.

Christians live under the New Covenant.

CB: "Because God had sufficient reason to personally and directly command that his people kill their neighbors' children in the OT."

Yes, the OT. The sufficient reason is sin. God, as Creator has a right to set the rules and take life. Why would He compromise what makes Him holy and majestic by letting wrongful actions go unpunished?

When you read a passage of Scripture do you look at the audience it is addressing, understand the culture of the times, take in the full context along with a host of other issues?

CB: "Because God had sufficient reason to command that Abraham kill his own son and was rewarded for being willing to do so."

Yes, a sufficient reason which is revealed in Scripture (Genesis 22:1,12; James 2:21-23; Hebrews 11:17-19).

This is a circumstance in which God use not only to test Abraham, but also to teach us.

CB: "Because God had sufficient reason to wipe out 99.99% of all living creatures during the Great Flood."

Yes, wickedness. The whole earth was filled with wickedness and depravity.

CB: "Because "God's ways are not our ways" and human beings are incompetent interpreters of his eternal will and incapable of thwarting his eternal plan."

Yes His ways are higher than our ways and sometimes beyond finding out. His Spirit fills us, gives us discernment, changes our hostile nature, is with His people always and helps them to understand and workout their salvation as well as primarily revealing Jesus Christ to us.

CB: "Because the Creator is free to do with his creation as he so chooses to advance his eternal plan."

True, and yet He gives you life, a volition, a will, that you use to judge and slander Him out of your own brilliant wisdom (Psalm 14:1; 1:20-3:18).

There is a way that seems right to sinful men and you are walking in it.

CB: "That's a lot of stuff to ignore or deny in order to be able to avoid answering in the affirmative."

I'm not ignoring it, just taking it in context and looking to whom it is addressing and the reason.

How could I be convinced of something that goes against His written will? -- PeterHuff

Because Jesus has always been God. Because the OT is part of his revealed written word. Because God had sufficient reason to personally and directly command that his people kill their neighbors' children in the OT. Because God had sufficient reason to command that Abraham kill his own son and was rewarded for being willing to do so. Because God had sufficient reason to wipe out 99.99% of all living creatures during the Great Flood. Because "God's ways are not our ways" and human beings are incompetent interpreters of his eternal will and incapable of thwarting his eternal plan. Because the Creator is free to do with his creation as he so chooses to advance his eternal plan.

That's a lot of stuff to ignore or deny in order to be able to avoid answering in the affirmative.

You seem to be saying that you'll only accept God's direct, special revelation if it happens to agree with your standard of what is reasonable and non-contradictory. While I'm relieved to see that, how is that not more than a little presumptuous and relativistic?

--------

GoldenEagles:

1 Samuel 15:2-3 and Joshua 6:20-21.

Hi GoldenEagle,

ME: “I don't follow his reasoning on the father/mother part. It strikes me as aberrant theology ...”

GE: “I would propose to you, that the current configuration of current Christian Theology has some rather gaping holes in it. I would propose to you that some of the necessary keys that would allow the Children of God to effectively counter the operation of the forces of darkness on this planet, have either been left out, or they have been consciously removed.”

Left out or removed from what? Is the Bible not sufficient? Where do you get Father/Mother from in Scripture? Where do you get this ‘astral plane’ stuff from?

GE: “One sign of this is that the greatest abomination against God, the destruction of the children in the womb, has become an American Institution of Virtue, with more than 50 million citizens slaughtered thus far, and the Christian Community is powerless to stop it.

Yes, it is the worst holocaust, possibly of all time with 50 million US abortions and an estimated 800 million world-wide all made possible by rejecting Good's truth, the lie of evolution and the devaluing of human life.

GE: “Another sign of this, is the next greatest abomination against God, in the form of the homosexual rights movement, representing a monumental mudslide of moral depravity the likes of which the world has not seen since the times of Sodom and Gomorrah, is inexorably engulfing the minds of the American people, and again, the Christian Community is powerless to stop it.

Yes a mudslide of moral depravity. I can’t argue with this for the most part. I’ve seen the news from the Toronto Gay Pride Parade week. Kids in the crowd of hundreds of thousands lining the streets as scantily clad people, almost nude in some cases, promote their sexual agenda.

GE: “Why is the Christian Community powerless to stop this onslaught against the purposes of God? The general answer to this question is that they do not have the correct spiritual weapons in their hands. Why? Who is denying the Children of God access to these spiritual weapons?”

I think we are ourselves in our half-hearted commitment and obedience to the Lord Jesus Christ. We have become worldly Christians.

PART 2

GE: “Where is the member of the Christian community who can make water into wine, heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, give sight to the blind, raise the dead, multiply the loaves and fishes, walk on water, and cast out devils? This is the minimum the “believer” is supposed to be able to do. “

Are you basing that on Mark 16:9-20? Have you read the footnote? “The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.”

Was this not fulfilled in the first century with the apostles and early Christians?

ME: “Okay Gimpi, I see what you mean. GoldenEagle, you have gone too far with your explicit and graphic details”

GE: “No, I was very careful to be technically accurate. How in the world are you supposed to counter a poison, if you cannot talk about what that poison is? No, the only way to get at the truth behind the lie, is to speak about it. The homosexual position is that a certain configuration of moral debauchery is actually a virtue. If you cannot talk about the moral debauchery, and show why it is not a virtue, what is left but to let them march on to victory?”

Nevertheless, overly graphic.

I think it goes a lot further than that. There has always been that long war against God, as Henry Morris would say. But there was a gradual changing of the guard as to the way men thought about life and origin and meaning with the Enlightenment, then Darwin’s theory of evolution furthered that notion that God was not needed. The Age of Reason with man as the final measure was starting to have its effects in the higher schools of learning, which trickled down to the masses. Christians compromised God’s word with human reasoning and with the advancement of science came the split between faith and reason, fact and value dichotomy, as Nancy Pearcey would say. Evolutionary thought has permeated into almost every area of human reasoning, including the church. There is a world-view shift that cannot make sense of ultimately anything.

cornbread_r2 says, "I assumed you are a Christian who believes the Bible and the many instances recorded there where God did, in fact, command his people to kill their neighbors."

You have shifted your attention from a scenario dealing with a hypothetical homosexual child in a modern context, to a scenario recorded in the Bible, probably in the Old Testament, a military engagement perhaps. Please specify the particular Biblical event you are referring to.

Hi GoldenEagle,

GE: "Peterhuff, I have placed a reasonable challenge before you in my delineation of the gaping holes in Christian Theology as it stands today, a tattered remnant of the original banner of victory. I expect you to answer it.

I'm on to it next, after this post.

GE: "Your silence reflects the problem inherent in making alliances, even temporary, with the homosexual advocates, as this poison of sympathy will tear down your own will power to stand up and fight for what is right."

Where have I been silent?

Hey, I understand we all get carried away with our words at times, but I still see a difference between treating a person with respect and yet opposing what they believe in when it is contrary to God's truth. Yes it would be unloving to say nothing, to lead someone on in believing that gay marriage is good in the eyes of God or homosexual practice is not wrong in the eyes of God.

It is not my position to take revenge for immoral practices. That is God's alone.

Cornbread, sorry about the misspelled words.

The premise of your question assumes that it is possible for God our Father to give a command to an embodied soul, to take the life of another. But that is not possible. -- GoldenEagles

You're correct, I assumed you are a Christian who believes the Bible and the many instances recorded there where God did, in fact, command his people to kill their neighbors. My bad.

But that doesn't seem to quite get you off the hook. By stating that such a thing is an impossibility, you are, in effect, saying that your God is not omnipotent -- that he can't do everything and doesn't have free will to do with his creation as he sees fit. Of course too, if your God isn't all-powerful then his creation can thwart his plan. If his creatures can alter his plan, then it seems, necessarily, he also can't be omniscient. If your God isn't all-powerful and all-knowing why do you call him God?

Hi Cornbread,

I can't remember you following up when the thread ran dry. We've had a long running debate with Walter and we usually post as to where to go next. If I recall properly you never answered all our questions either (RCofield and mine).

CB: "If you were absolutely convinced that God was speaking to you and commanding you to kill your neighbor's gay child, would you? (This assumes that you've ruled out mental illness, hallucination, demonic deception and all other possible causes that might make this a false revelation.)"

God's revelation to us is sufficient to discern His will. How could I be convinced of something that goes against His written will? He does not contradict Himself. You speak of hypothetical situations.

"But I tell you who hear Me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one check, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your clock, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you.
If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' love those who love them. And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' do that. And if you lend to those who expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' lend to 'sinners,' expecting to be repaid in full. But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great in heaven, and you will be sons of the Most High, because He is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful." Luke 6:27-36).

"Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," Do not murder,"....and whatever other commands there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself." Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law." (Romans 13:8-10)

"Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." (Romans 12:21)

God has given us all we need for godliness in His Son, His Spirit and His Word. When we are broken and submit, the Spirit teaches us (Christians) about Jesus and confirms His word of truth in us.

Continuing Gimpi,

GIMPI: "As to your devotion to scripture, I would point out that there is a lot more emphasis on aid to the poor, care of the sick, help for the helpless, and company for the prisoner than there is focus on sexuality of any kind in the Bible.

Yes, God's concern is for the poor, the orphan, the widow, the downtrodden. His concern is also for purity and faithfulness. This is a constant theme throughout the Bible. There are countless references in both testaments concerning marriage and faithful/unfaithfulness/sexual purity/immorality. Are you serious about less focus on sexual immorality? We see God's concern for marriage and faithfulness in the second chapter of Genesis onwards, right to the final chapter of the final book of Revelation.

GIMPI: "Again, you choose not to look in that direction. That's your choice, but If I were you, I would wonder why I choose to give so much more import to those who challenge your views, than those who don't live up to the Sermon on the Mount.

Yes, but also balanced in the sermon are these beatitudes,

"Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled...Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God...Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 5:6, 8, 10)

Righteousness and purity involves finding out what is true, what is good, and that is God's will. He has revealed, as I said before, that homosexuality is wrong. Your persecuting me for acknowledging and agreeing with the highest authority there is does not change what is good and right and noble and true.

GIMPI: "NAMBLA, for instance does not, by definition, involve consenting adults. You don't need to see the need to control adult behavior to see the need to project children. The two issues aren't ever related. If you see them as in relation, the problem is in your view. You ask where it stops. It stops with children. It stops with lack of consent. It stops with harm. To say a consensual gay relationship is anything like child molestation is to say my relationship with my husband is a form of rape."

It depends on who makes the rules. Look around the world.

GIMPI: "I would remind you that in the past, people just as sure of God's will as you are tortured people and burned them alive over obscure points of dogma, because they believed God wanted them to. I would ask you what you would say to them. Would you challenge their ideas with the passion you do mine? Or would they get a pass because of their faith?"

If I feel the Spirit's leading and I'm sure they are misrepresenting the gospel I would. I come on these forums to hopefully challenge opposing world-views that via for the right to be regarded true.

Realistically it is not possible to confront everyone. I try to respond to those who respond to what I say. Sometimes I don't know how to answer.

Where do you ever see the mandate by Jesus to torture or exploit others?

cornbread_r2 asks, “If you were absolutely convinced that God was speaking to you and commanding you to kill your neighbor's gay child, would you?”

The premise of your question, being faulty, does not allow for a direct answer. The premise of your question assumes that it is possible for God our Father to give a command to an embodied soul, to take the life of another. But that is not possible. Life opportunity on earth is given to the soul to learn how to use freewill properly. Whatever the soul does, it will always be a matter of freewill choice. God will never override the freewill of the individual. Wherever we find people taking the lives of other people, it is an exercise of the freewill. Of course, the freewill is supposed to be guided by the Laws of God. One of those laws is, Thou Shalt Not Kill. This Law would certainly apply as an iron clad moral compass in the hypothetical situation that you are posing.

Hi Gimpi,

GIMPI: "My standard, as I have always said, is [avoiding] harm. If a behavior causes no harm (real quantifiable harm, as opposed to some sort of perceived spiritual damage) is the only reason to interfere with force of law in someone else's life.

Why is 'your standard' true? Is it actually 'yours?' There are lots of subjective standards that disagree with your idea of what qualifies as 'real' harm. What makes you the determiner of the 'right' definition of what constitutes harm?

Since you have stated your standard doesn't have an objective source for your perception of harm, then why 'should' we adapt what you perceive as harmful or beneficial?

Without a greater Mind your standard would have originate from a material/evolutionary outlook.

You also mentioned in your last post the concept of freedom. I would also question how such a world-view could ever be free or produce freedom? As Nancy Pearcey said, Saving Leonardo, p. 93, "Freedom is impossible in a materialistic world in which all actions are determined by natural forces." If all we are is physical mechanisms then where do you get the idea of what is good from - atoms colliding together? What if the atoms in my biologic bag collide differently than yours and I determine harm differently? Then whose right?

GIMPI: "That standard does not speak of approval. It's not my business to approve of anyone else's life. It's only my business to prevent people from harming each other."

By your standard!

GIMPI: "I need no outside force to make that standard work. It works for me. You don't need to understand it, any more than I fully get yours.

Neither do a great majority need an outside objective 'force' or Being, so it all boils down to who forces their subjective standard/opinion on others.

Their standards work for them.

So what are you griping about? It all boils down to whoever is the stronger gets the say and the rest had better shut up. If that standard is a dictator then he'll use harm to necessitate control for the betterment of his survival and that of his ruthless regime. But since he also controls by force he would also determine what is ruthless.

That is what happens when there is no universal form of justice, but everyone wants to impose their own opinion as to what the definition of harm or good is.

And your opinion of good verses harm goes way back to the Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve's realization of evil came when they disobeyed God who is the objective standard of good. That was the start of subjectivism/relativism; when man chose his own subjective way over that of God's objective goodness.

I don't understand how someone can passionately condemn harmless behaviors, while ignoring real harm. -- gimpi

Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I could have been. My mother and sister absolutely condemned torturing, maiming and killing those African children. What they couldn't condemn was the idea that children could be demonically possessed, in exactly the same way that GoldenEagles couldn't. They all just think that the African exorcists weren't doing it right; a disagreement over technique. In defense of my 82 year old mother, she herself has been threatened with eternal torture in hell her entire life for not believing any stupid thing the RCC tells her.

---------

Peter_Huff:

I've asked the same question of you before on this forum and had it ignored. In case you just didn't see it on this thread I'll ask again.

If you were absolutely convinced that God was speaking to you and commanding you to kill your neighbor's gay child, would you? (This assumes that you've ruled out mental illness, hallucination, demonic deception and all other possible causes that might make this a false revelation.)

----------

GoldenEagles:

As much as I'd like to continue egging you on in demonstrating your abject ignorance, I'll just ask of you the same question I asked of Peter_Huff immediately above.

peterhuff says, "please direct me to the right post"

It is the post precipitated by your comment regarding my reference to God as Father and Mother, posted November 6, 2010 11:02 PM

GoldenEagle, please direct me to the right post; the one you are referring to, as per this statement,

"[The] challenge before you in my delineation of the gaping holes in Christian Theology as it stands today, a tattered remnant of the original banner of victory. I expect you to answer it."

Hi Gimpi,

GIMPI: "This is how, from a historical perspective, one starts a witch-hunt... Why is that more important than minor disputes in belief?"

I'm not starting a witch hunt. I'm pointing out something that God has said is wrong. As I said before, show me why homosexuality is not a destructive practice. Show me how it is natural. Show me how it is good.

GIMPI: "If I were you, I would worry about the guy who seems to want to hurt people. But maybe that's just me."

You are looking at this totally from your particular bias. Why do you think that looking at it from your perspective does not harm others?

GIMPI: "As to the whole 'gay marriage right' issue, I firmly believe in a free society, such as the one we live in, any adult should have the absolute right to live their life as they see fit, provided no obvious harm is caused to anyone else."

There is not such thing as a free society by the terms you have laid down. As for an adult having the 'absolute right' to live their life as they see fit as long as they don't hurt or harm anyone, that's anarchy.

How do you know these actions are not 'hurting and harming' anyone? Look at the stats on Aids in the gay community. Look at the average length of commitment between gay couples as opposed to heterosexual couples. Look at the harm and hurt this lack of commitment makes, or the other points that RCofield has noted in his counseling.

How can you judge the long term effects of what this practice does unless you take these things into consideration also, along with the eternal consequences, which are far worse?

GIMPI: "You may feel God disapproves. That is your right,...

Yes, God disapproves. He tells us so. The problem comes in that no one can serve two masters, for one he loves and yet hates the other (Luke 16:13 or Matthew 6:24), and God knows the heart and motive. Your heart will not submit to His gracious wisdom, that He knows best. You want to be that judge. Why is your judgment sound?

GIMPI: "However, I don't believe you have the right to interfere with someone else's choice of life-companion....

I'm pointing out what God reveals as good.

We had a gay couple who lived around the corner from us. I did not interfere in their life-style. I knew it was wrong, but I still greeted them and treated them with dignity and the same respect that I treat other people with.

You are confusing choice with what is good.

GIMPI: "Freedom, as people point out in this time of year, isn't free. Sometimes...[it] is putting up with something you disapprove of. You don't have to approve of someone else's relationships to support their right to live their lives as they choose. Since I don't share your view of God, I am always happy for someone who feels they have found someone to share their life with."

Again you are talking about your preferences, but what makes your opinion right or good? Because you like it? That is why the world is so barbaric at times. Each does as he/she sees fit.

PeterHuff,

My standard, as I have always said, is harm. If a behavior causes no harm (real quantifiable harm, as opposed to some sort of perceived spiritual damage) is the only reason to interfere with force of law in someone else's life. That standard does not speak of approval. It's not my business to approve of anyone else's life. It's only my business to prevent people from harming each other. I need no outside force to make that standard work. It works for me. You don't need to understand it, any more than I fully get yours.

As to your devotion to scripture, I would point out that there is a lot more emphasis on aid to the poor, care of the sick, help for the helpless, and company for the prisoner than there is focus on sexuality of any kind in the Bible. Again, you choose not to look in that direction. That's your choice, but If I were you, I would wonder why I choose to give so much more import to those who challenge your views, than those who don't live up to the Sermon on the Mount. To me, it appears to be inconsistent.

NAMBLA, for instance does not, by definition, involve consenting adults. You don't need to see the need to control adult behavior to see the need to project children. The two issues aren't ever related. If you see them as in relation, the problem is in your view. You ask where it stops. It stops with children. It stops with lack of consent. It stops with harm. To say a consensual gay relationship is anything like child molestation is to say my relationship with my husband is a form of rape.

I would remind you that in the past, people just as sure of God's will as you are tortured people and burned them alive over obscure points of dogma, because they believed God wanted them to. I would ask you what you would say to them. Would you challenge their ideas with the passion you do mine? Or would they get a pass because of their faith?

Hi GoldenEagle,

GE: "Peterhuff, I have placed a reasonable challenge before you in my delineation of the gaping holes in Christian Theology as it stands today, a tattered remnant of the original banner of victory. I expect you to answer it. Your silence reflects the problem inherent in making alliances, even temporary, with the homosexual advocates, as this poison of sympathy will tear down your own will power to stand up and fight for what is right."

I don't sympathize with the practice of homosexuality. I know it is wrong. I do however believe that each person is created in God's image and likeness and therefore deserves dignity and respect as a person. I believe in forgiveness, just as I have been forgiven. I believe in treating others better than I treat myself, but also in standing against what is wrong.

So let me read your challenge to see where you are coming from. I'll look for it. In the mean time, I'm going to finish my reply to Gimpi.

Hi Gimpi,

GIMPI: "You choose to contest with basically good-hearted people who you disagree with on points of belief, but who bring no harm to the world, and you choose to ignore someone who is obviously more than a few bubbles off plumb, and is making veiled calls for violence. I'm serious about the stuff Goldeneagles is saying. This is how, from a historical perspective, one starts a witch-hunt. This belief in 'destroying the village to save it' has been behind many of the worst outbreaks in history. Why is that more important than minor disputes in belief?"

It all depends on whether you value truth above preference, Gimpi. As Paul put it to the Galatians, "How have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth?" (Galatians 4:16)

You say good-hearted people who aren't harming anyone. How do you know their practices are good? How do you know they are not harmful either to themselves or to others? Have you ever heard of NAMBLA?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Man/Boy_Love_Association

Here's an organization that is promoting the kind of freedom and free speech that you advocate later on in the same post, along with some other aims, such as breaking down the age barrier. What is next? Where does it stop?

The type of practice the homosexuals engage in is not natural. The human race would come to a screeching stop if this was the only form of sexual union. Explain to me how it is 'good?'

'Goodhearted' people do a lot of bad things. The world is a testimony to that. You are trying to blur the line between preference and goodness.

Are you a councilor? Have you seen the results that this type of union causes? If not then I would invite you to read some of RCofield's comments the link provided,

http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/jonathan_merritt/2010/11/voting_values_doesnt_mean_endorsing_a_party.html#comments

I'm specifically thinking of November 6, 2010 10:07 PM. Tell me that is good.

What you are failing to do is differential between goodness and preference. There is a difference you know, or do you?

This is the point I'm making. Define where 'good' comes from? What is its standard. What is its ideal? Surely you can answer these questions before you go bantering them about?

Gimpi, I am not sure what I could say to an individual who does not recognize the Reality of God. If you have only lived out in the scorching desert of divine alienation, how can you relate to the verdant forests, and the beautiful meadows, and even the snow capped peaks of Divine Reality? You would only scoff, and sting, like a scorpion.

Peterhuff, I have placed a reasonable challenge before you in my delineation of the gaping holes in Christian Theology as it stands today, a tattered remnant of the original banner of victory. I expect you to answer it. Your silence reflects the problem inherent in making alliances, even temporary, with the homosexual advocates, as this poison of sympathy will tear down your own will power to stand up and fight for what is right.

GoldenEagles,
Thank you for your response, but I'm not going to follow up with you. I always try to respond to people who give me the courtesy of a reply, but in your case, I have to make an exception.

I could, of course, be wrong, but you strike me as the sort of person I would avoid sitting next to on the bus. Four years of commuting by Metro during college left me with a pretty good sense of how to spot the sort of obsessive, over-the-top type of person who makes long trips a nerve-wracking experience, and my internal alarms went off with your first post.

Fare-thee-well.

cornbread_r2 says, “I'd like to respond to your latest but I'm finding it impossible to mentally segregate your comments regarding demonic astral projection from your other comments regarding certain homosexual behaviors.”

Isn’t it true that my technically accurate description has helped you to more accurately come to terms with the disgusting nature of the behavior pattern? And doesn’t this more complete sense of the disgusting nature of the behavior pattern provide a useful bridge into this subject area which deals with the essential question as to the originating impulse for this behavior?

In other words, having now a better sense of the disgusting nature of the behavior pattern, does this not assist you to formulate in your own mind the question as to what could possibly cause human beings to do this, something so outside of the boundaries of the natural order? And thereby allow you to approach the truth of the matter, allowing us to see more clearly the hand of the very forces of evil intent on making a mockery of the purity of the original God-Design?

For truly, what statement is being made here, when the homosexual releases the very seed of life, which God has created, into the embrace of the excrement cavity itself?

Cornbread,

Thank you for your response. I really don't expect anything of sense from Goldeneagles, but I find his beliefs frankly frightening. As to your relatives, they puzzle me. I don't understand how someone can passionately condemn harmless behaviors, while ignoring real harm.

Oh, well, that's why I visit this site. As I have commented, I really don't have "faith." I can't imagine simply deciding to believe something, in the face of contradictory evidence. My beliefs, such as they are, are developed by the knowledge I have accumulated over my lifetime. And, when what I know about the world changes, so do my beliefs. I gather some people regard that as a lack of character.

Posted by: gimpi | November 7, 2010 12:19 PM

PeterHuff:

I understand what you believe, but as I have said before, I can't really share them. I also don't understand where you choose to focus. You choose to contest with basically good-hearted people who you disagree with on points of belief, but who bring no harm to the world, and you choose to ignore someone who is obviously more than a few bubbles off plumb, and is making veiled calls for violence. I'm serious about the stuff Goldeneagles is saying. This is how, from a historical perspective, one starts a witch-hunt. This belief in 'destroying the village to save it' has been behind many of the worst outbreaks in history. Why is that more important than minor disputes in belief?

As I see it, Goldeneagles is both unstable, and is (or would like to be) a threat. Daniel and PSolus clearly are neither. If I were you, I would worry about the guy who seems to want to hurt people. But maybe that's just me.

As to the whole 'gay marriage right' issue, I firmly believe in a free society, such as the one we live in, any adult should have the absolute right to live their life as they see fit, provided no obvious harm is caused to anyone else.

You may feel God disapproves. That is your right, just as some folks believe with equal passion that a woman appearing in mixed company with her hair earns God's displeasure. However, I don't believe you have the right to interfere with someone else's choice of life-companion than I believe someone else can tell me I have to wear an Ababa. Freedom, as people point out in this time of year, isn't free. Sometimes the cost is blood or treasure, and sometimes it's price is putting up with something you disapprove of. You don't have to approve of someone else's relationships to support their right to live their lives as they choose. Since I don't share your view of God, I am always happy for someone who feels they have found someone to share their life with. Plumbing is irrelevant.

GoldenEagles,

"The homosexual movement puts their practices before the people every time they proclaim themselves to be homosexuals. Especially during their homosexual “pride” parades. At one point they devised a term “gay” to cover up the crude and disgusting nature of their activity."

Very interesting.

So, where do the Village People fit into all this?

GoldenEagles:

I'd like to respond to your latest but I'm finding it impossible to mentally segregate your comments regarding demonic astral projection from your other comments regarding certain homosexual behaviors.

/ridicule

cornbread_r2 says, “I once asked my mother and sister, two very good Catholic women -- women who never consider harming a child -- to condemn certain other Christians in Africa for torturing, maiming and killing children as young as five for being possessed by demons. “

Taking your premise at face value, I would say that they were not prepared with the right understanding to take the right stand in this situation. This is one of the gaping holes in the Christian Theology that I spoke about below.

The demonic forces prey upon all people who have a vulnerability to the energies of anger, hatred, and fear, especially. Their astral forcefields are very powerful depositories for these dark energies. And they can inject these energies into the astral bodies of those who are vulnerable, and bring about this very cruel behavior.

Again, the astral body is that part of the human aura associated with the feeling world, as distinct from the mental world.

Demonic forces can only be expunged by the Power of Light, as the Master Jesus Christ demonstrated. Human beings, at their current level of spiritual development, do not have this kind of Light. That is why the exorcism must be done in the name of the Master Jesus Christ, who will extend the necessary Power of Light. Part of the faith formula is in this point of understanding, that it is the Master who does the work, and not you. Even so, the exorcism cannot be accomplished without prayer. The prayers must be ongoing until the exorcism is complete. If the people who are doing the exorcism feel that they must enter into a regimen of physical abuse, then they have lost faith in the Master, and they are being themselves manipulated by the demonic forces.

The basic principles are right there in the record left by the Master Jesus Christ.

cornbread_r2 asks, “You've obviously given this issue quite a bit of thought. Do you ever feel the least bit of resentment towards God for making you think and write so graphically -- and frequently -- about some male homosexual practices?”

The homosexual movement puts their practices before the people every time they proclaim themselves to be homosexuals. Especially during their homosexual “pride” parades. At one point they devised a term “gay” to cover up the crude and disgusting nature of their activity. And in this way, the American people have come to think in the context of that surface term, their minds no longer penetrating into the reality of the crude behavior that is actually before them. The only way to begin to turn the tide back in the direction of sanity, is to speak the truth about what is actually going on.

The only way for evil to triumph is for good men to stand by and do nothing.

peterhuff,

"Okay GoldenEagle, what are you talking about? This is weird stuff,"

[religious ravings expurgated]

"?????"

So, you're beginning to see how some of us feel when reading your comments.

Granted, you don't have quite the poetic flair that GoldenEagle has, but you both seem to be coming from the same religious tradition and sense of self-righteouness.

Gimpi:

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a satisfying response to your request.

I once asked my mother and sister, two very good Catholic women -- women who never consider harming a child -- to condemn certain other Christians in Africa for torturing, maiming and killing children as young as five for being possessed by demons. As much as they wanted to, they couldn't, beyond disagreeing with their methods of exorcism. Of course, that's because their own brand of Christianity also teaches that God sometimes, for some unknowable reason, allows even children to be possessed by a supremely malevolent entity whose own existence is sustained by God himself.

When someone believes in the supernatural, where pretty much all possibilities are equivalent, no matter how seemingly irrational, believers often seem to get mired in a sort of moral paralysis. As much as they'd like to believe they have an absolute, objective morality, in the end they have to admit that it's really subjective -- subject to the desires and motives of an inscrutable being who can do anything .

------------

GoldenEagles:

You've obviously given this issue quite a bit of thought. Do you ever feel the least bit of resentment towards God for making you think and write so graphically -- and frequently -- about some male homosexual practices?

------------

Peter Huff:

If you really and truly believed that God was speaking directly to you and was commanding you to kill your neighbor's gay child, would you do it? (This assumes that you've already ruled out mental illness, hallucination, demonic deception and other possible causes for the "revelation".)

How is it possible to support the unequal treatment of some US citizens based upon their sexual orientation and still claim that it's nothing personal? If I denied you housing or employment based upon your heterosexuality would you think that I was just disagreeing with your world-view or that I was screwing you over?

Typo correction - “Thy Kingdom Come, Thy Will be Done, On Earth, As it Is in Heaven.”

peterhuff says, “I don't follow his reasoning on the father/mother part. It strikes me as aberrant theology ... “

I would propose to you, that the current configuration of current Christian Theology has some rather gaping holes in it. I would propose to you that some of the necessary keys that would allow the Children of God to effectively counter the operation of the forces of darkness on this planet, have either been left out, or they have been consciously removed.

One sign of this is that the greatest abomination against God, the destruction of the children in the womb, has become an American Institution of Virtue, with more than 50 million citizens slaughtered thus far, and the Christian Community is powerless to stop it.

Another sign of this, is the next greatest abomination against God, in the form of the homosexual rights movement, representing a monumental mudslide of moral depravity the likes of which the world has not seen since the times of Sodom and Gomorrah, is inexorably engulfing the minds of the American people, and again, the Christian Community is powerless to stop it.

Why is the Christian Community powerless to stop this onslaught against the purposes of God? The general answer to this question is that they do not have the correct spiritual weapons in their hands. Why? Who is denying the Children of God access to these spiritual weapons?

Another sign of the powerlessness of the Christian Community is found in the context of a promise the Master Jesus Christ made to his followers recorded in the Book of John, Chapter 14, Verse 12, as follows:

“Verily Verily I say unto you, he that believth 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.”

Where is there any member of the Christian Community today, who can anchor and integrate the geometry of belief to which the Master refers, that will allow him or her to fulfill this promise, to do the works that the Master did, and more?

Where is the member of the Christian community who can make water into wine, heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, give sight to the blind, raise the dead, multiply the loaves and fishes, walk on water, and cast out devils? This is the minimum the “believer” is supposed to be able to do.

If anyone considers me a fool for looking for people who can do this, they must consider the Master Jesus Christ a fool as well, for promising it. But clearly there is wisdom in everything the Master Jesus Christ promised. And so we must ask, where is the missing wisdom?

There is something about the current belief structure, i.e. codified in the religious community’s version of “conventional wisdom”, which has thrown a wrench into the process whereby thousands, and tens of thousands of believers, were to fulfill this promise, and thus, to transform the world, fulling the larger promise, “Thy Kingdom Come, They Will be Done, On Earth, As it Is in Heaven.”

peterhuff says, “Okay Gimpi, I see what you mean. GoldenEagle, you have gone to far with your explicit and graphic details”

No, I was very careful to be technically accurate. How in the world are you supposed to counter a poison, if you cannot talk about what that poison is? No, the only way to get at the truth behind the lie, is to speak about it. The homosexual position is that a certain configuration of moral debauchery is actually a virtue. If you cannot talk about the moral debauchery, and show why it is not a virtue, what is left but to let them march on to victory?

You were too quick to bend down and surrender before the emotional rampage of a homosexual sympathizer. Feel the energy that made you bend the knee and worship for a moment, before their altar. And by the way, you are self-polluting every time you allow the word “gay” to roll of your lips. The term “gay” is a propaganda lie, that puts a happy face on the most pungent form of rebellion against God that we have seen on the planet today, apart from abortion. When you use the term, you are supporting the agenda of rebellion. The term “homosexual” is the accurate term to use. Everyone knows what you are talking about if you use that word.

Okay Gimpi, I see what you mean. GoldenEagle, you have gone to far with your explicit and graphic details.

"Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving." (Ephesians 5:4)

Okay GoldenEagle, what are you talking about? This is weird stuff,

GE: "When we speak about the origin of the homoerotic urge, we point to the black heart of a demonic presence on the astral plane. We say, that this urge is broadcast into the vulnerable astral body of the victim, and if the victim identifies with the urge, and acts on the urge, he is then hooked, and comes under the influence of the demonic controller from the point forward."

?????

Continuing Gimpi,

GIMPI: "Now, do you address him? No, you instead address the people challenging him. You are more worried about the 'immorality' of gay people, and, for some reason, those who defend their rights, than you are about someone who calls for, "For the People of God, the highest priority there is, if they want to remain in the Good Graces of God, is to stop all activities which reinforce the demon induced delusion that nothing is wrong with the state of homosexual slavery."

No where do I see the Lord Jesus Christ instructing His disciples to physically harm anyone. Rather I see admonitions like,

"For though we live in the world, we do not wage as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every though to make it obedient to Christ." (2 Corinthians 10:3-5)

I don't see anywhere were we are fighting against a person as such but against the world-view or beliefs that they hold.

"For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms." (Ephesians 6:12)

The fight is not against people but against the false philosophies and concepts that dominate their thinking.

As the Lord Himself said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were My servants would fight to prevent My arrest by the Jews. But now My kingdom is from another place." (John 18:36)

But God, throughout the Bible, reveals to His servants/disciples what is right and what is sinful. He is out highest authority, not laws passed by a handful of liberal judges or any social convention that opposes His commands, degrees and statutes. Homosexuality is wrong in His eyes, therefore it is wrong.

As Christians we are told to submit to the governing authorities, but also to oppose that which is wrong/sinful.

You are under the impression that gay marriage is a right and possibly even right. What makes it so?

Homosexuality Breaks the Laws of God
and Violence Against Homosexuals
Also Breaks the Laws of God - Part 2

Both classes of individuals, having become demon enslaved, have been effectively sidelined as constructive contributors to the incoming Kingdom of God in the earth. But not only have they both become sidelined as constructive contributors to the incoming Kingdom of God, they both become useful instruments in opposing that incoming Kingdom.

As anyone can see, homosexuals become electrodes of Atheism in the earth, as they are driven to shake their fist in the face of God and his Prophets, and in the face of those who try to be faithful to the purity of the original teaching.

As to those who can be manipulated, by the pressure of hatred, to take violent action against homosexuals in the name of religion, they can also be manipulated to take violent action against a different religious tradition. And it does not even have to be violet action. Verbal action against other religious traditions effectively divides the body of God on earth.

You would think that the believers in God should be able to unite. But no, they cannot, because the astral bodies of believers are also vulnerable to manipulation through the application of strong currents of hatred, contempt and disdain, becoming the pawns which the dark side will use to create chasms, and sometimes even wars of violence between religious communities.

This explains the crusades that the Christian world launched against the Muslim world. It was completely demon driven. And what is more, as you will know them by their fruits, it created a wound that still festers, and still divides these two large parts of God’s Family in the earth.

Every individual who has the CORRECT sense that homosexuality is a violation of the Laws of God, must be on guard against this kind of manipulation. For truly, for any soul who commits violence against homosexuals is in a state of rebellion against the law which the Master Jesus has set forth, regarding the preeminence of love.

And the same factors apply in regards to any soul who can be driven to commit violence against homosexuals in the name of religion, namely, that at the end of this life, they too will face their teachers, and their teachers, who counsel hatred and violence, the same demonic hordes, they will see face to face. In other words, they will continue this relationship of enslavement face to face. This is hell.

The forces of Evil must be opposed. But the Laws of God must be upheld. The Master commanded, Love your enemies. That is not optional. And he also commanded his disciples to go after the lost sheep. What other class of individuals could better be defined as the lost sheep, than those who have fallen into the slavery of the homosexual lifestyle under the lash and chain of the possessing demonic forces?

Homosexuality Breaks the Laws of God
and Violence Against Homosexuals
Also Breaks the Laws of God - Part 1

gimpi says, “You are 'saving their souls,' so the attacks against their reputations, bodies and lives are certainly justified. That kind of thinking is scary.”

I admit that exposing the truth about the origin of the homoerotic urge, in the black hearts of demons on the astral plane, does not enhance the reputation of homosexuals. The connection between the homosexual plight, and demon manipulation, certainly counters the mass marketed illusion associated with the use of the word “gay” to characterize these individuals. I will give you that point. However, beyond that, you are spinning a large thick dust cloud of falsehood.

There is nothing in what I have written that would advocate an attack against the BODIES, or the LIVES, of homosexuals. Nor could there be. Why? Because the same principles would apply to any individual who employs violence against another Child of God.

As a general rule, within a civil society, violence in any form, committed against a Child of God, always crosses the line of God’s Law. The exceptions to this rule would not be relevant to this discussion area, so I will bypass their delineation.

What is the force that pushes a Child of God to cross the line of the law?

When we speak about the origin of the homoerotic urge, we point to the black heart of a demonic presence on the astral plane. We say, that this urge is broadcast into the vulnerable astral body of the victim, and if the victim identifies with the urge, and acts on the urge, he is then hooked, and comes under the influence of the demonic controller from the point forward.

When we speak about the origin of an urge to commit violence against a homosexual, we point to the black heart of a demonic presence on the astral plane. We say, that in like manner, this urge is broadcast into the vulnerable astral body of the victim, and if the victim identifies with the urge, and acts on the urge, he is then hooked, and comes under the influence of the demonic controller from that point forward.

If an individual FEELS an intensity of hatred that would motivate the individual to violence, that individual is being manipulated by these same demonic forces. And they become servants of the dark side, the pawns thereof, to no lesser extent than the homosexuals are themselves.

This is a very interesting facet of the problem, that might appear as a conundrum to many.

But the demonic forces on the astral plane are interested primarily in attacking the unity and the cohesion of God’s Culture on earth, as it tries to come forth. They manipulate one class of vulnerable souls to cross the line in one way, in terms of the moral debauchery that homosexuality represents. And then they manipulate another class to cross the line of the law in another way, in the commission of violence against these individuals.

Hi Gimpi,

After GoldenEagles came up with this comment, on November 5, 2010 @ 11:05pm, I stopped reading his posts,

GE: "For example,....God our Father and Mother..."

I don't follow his reasoning on the father/mother part. It strikes me as aberrant theology, but I gave him the benefit of the doubt, and yet his posts did not interest me after that.

I'm not sure whether there is some North American Indian spiritualism involved or not. I don't know of any mainline Christian denominations that use that kind of language to describe God. It is either a liberal gender free interpretation of the Bible or it has some New Age/Mother earth philosophy woven in there.

GIMPI: "Now, do you address him? No, you instead address the people challenging him. You are more worried about the 'immorality' of gay people, and, for some reason, those who defend their rights, than you are about someone who calls for, "For the People of God, the highest priority there is, if they want to remain in the Good Graces of God, is to stop all activities which reinforce the demon induced delusion that nothing is wrong with the state of homosexual slavery."

I'll continue with your last paragraph on the next post.

I've chatted with DITLD numerous times and always challenged him to account for his moral position. This is a challenge that goes way back, and since he always side-steps its justification I continue to ask where he gets his sense of moral 'right' from, whether that is on the topic of gay rights, a woman's right to choose, or even where he gets his qualitative value judgment from and what makes it true.

That is the topic that interests me. I want those who tolerate anything but the exclusive claim of Christianity to account and make sense of how they determine right and wrong instead of mocking the only world-view that can make sense of this world (bold claim I know).

GIMPI: "Highest priority," "Stop all activities," what do those phrases mean to you? To me, they are a call to attack gay people, people who believe there is nothing wrong in gay behavior, and people who just believe in minding their own business. And that doesn't bother you. What bothers you is those same people. That's where you focus your energy."

That is not true. I focus my energy on getting people who disparage Christianity to make sense of their system of belief without borrowing from the Christian world-view.

You suggest that I am not tolerant to homosexuals, but the truth of the matter is that the few practicing gay people that I know I treat with dignity and the same grace and mercy that God has shown me.

I'll go the extra mile for anybody that I can.

But I speak out against what I know is wrong. Homosexuality is not the kind of sexual practice that God designed us for. He told Adam and Eve to go forth and multiply. There is a design in marriage that signifies our relationship with God, that spiritual union that comes with our relationship to Christ that is an analogy of marriage.

PeterHuff

I have been following the conversation between GoldenEagles, DanielInTheLionsDen, PSolus and yourself with interest. I find it terrifying. Here's why.

GoldenEagles is pulling nonsense out of the medieval "Hammer of Witches" that was the basis of the witch hunts in the middle ages, and applying it to gay people. (really, almost word for word, that's where he's getting this stuff.) This is how a witch-hunt begins, by both demonizing the people you want to target, and making it a virtue to attack them. You are 'saving their souls,' so the attacks against their reputations, bodies and lives are certainly justified. That kind of thinking is scary. Fortunately, it's not the middle ages, so he probably won't be able to get his pogrom going, but it's still pretty nasty.

Now, do you address him? No, you instead address the people challenging him. You are more worried about the 'immorality' of gay people, and, for some reason, those who defend their rights, than you are about someone who calls for, "For the People of God, the highest priority there is, if they want to remain in the Good Graces of God, is to stop all activities which reinforce the demon induced delusion that nothing is wrong with the state of homosexual slavery."

"Highest priority," "Stop all activities," what do those phrases mean to you? To me, they are a call to attack gay people, people who believe there is nothing wrong in gay behavior, and people who just believe in minding their own business. And that doesn't bother you. What bothers you is those same people. That's where you focus your energy.

The next time you see an atrocity in the Islamic world, and you feel moved to complain, "Where are the moderate Muslims, why don't they condemn this?" I suggest a long look in the mirror. To me, you are doing the exact same thing right now. You are ignoring the atrocity that GoldenEagles is calling for, ignoring his obvious derangement, and instead focusing your attention on those who are challenging him, apparently because any defense of the basic rights of gay people is more offensive to you than crazy statements regarding "demonic slavery" and calls to attack those so enslaved. Why is that?

The Pain Associated with the Homosexual Act
Provides Evidence of Demonic Instigation - Part 2

There is also the presence of pain inflicted upon the soul sensibilities itself. We are all familiar with the odors associated with the substance that is contained within the bowels, and which exits through the male excrement opening. The odor is designed by God to register upon the higher sensibilities of the soul the sensation of disgust or unpleasantness, so that we would naturally be inclined to move away from it, and not get too close to it.

All homosexuals must suffer these odors in pursuit of their sexual pleasure, and this in itself is painful to the finer sensibilities of the soul. By the very Will of God, every time the individual enters there it receives this powerful signal that it is not supposed to enter there.

These two dimensions of pain were not designed to be associated with the domain of sexual experience, and thus they form a natural barrier against the development of a sense of happiness or fulfillment in the sexaul act, because the sensations are so prominently distasteful.

And thus, we have in truth three natural barriers. The first is the pain of entry. The second is the pain inflicted upon the higher sensibilities when exposed to the odors of human excrement. The third is the barrier associated with the natural proclivity of the soul to turn away from these unpleasant experiences.

And we must ask, what power is it, that helps the soul to push through these barriers? This power does not come from within the natural will power of the soul, for the natural will power of the soul draws back, and shrinks away from these painful gateway sensations. What pushes the soul forward past these substantial barriers is the force of the demonic lust that is very powerful, and is then in control of the feeling world of the victim.

If each homosexual would keep these principles in mind during the sex act, they will be able to more clearly discern the operation of the demonic presence in their world.

The Pain Associated with the Homosexual Act
Provides Evidence of Demonic Instigation - Part 1

I would begin by saying, that I am aware of the (natural) size of the male orifice into which homosexuals desire to insert their primary male organ. It is very small. The muscles that operate that opening naturally keep the opening closed tight most of the time. The nervous system impulse communicated to those muscles to relax them and to allow the opening to become wider, for the unloading of a load of excrement, is an internally generated signal, and it only occurs, as a general rule, when there is a load of excrement to release. This is a natural internal function that cannot be synthetically triggered.

What this means is that for the homosexuals to enter there, they must force their way in, past the natural configuration of the muscles to keep this opening closed, and in doing so, the gateway sensation for sexual pleasure for both partners, is PAIN.

One cannot seriously believe that God our Father and Mother designed the gateway sensation into the domain of sexual experience to be pain.

I would note, for the benefit of those who are interested in the relevance and application of the Teachings of the Master Jesus Christ, that this gives us another way to interpret the Master’s reference to the fact that there are those who take heaven by force. Heaven being interpreted as the domain of sexual pleasure. Here I think we have a civilized reference to the truth, that homosexuality is not something condoned by the Will of God.

Moreover, I am familiar with the size of the male orifice into which homosexuals desire to place their primary sexual organ, AS COMPARED to the female orifice into which that organ is intended to be inserted, and they are not comparable.

In fact, the natural female opening which is designed to receive the male organ, produces by design, a wonderful and blissful sensation from the first instant. There is no pain. The one is intended to receive the other in the most blessed manner.

Again, the male excrement opening is not so intended, and thus, must be forced opened, against the Will of God, producing the sensation of pain.

/////his ideological liberalism is not shared by a majority of America,s voters/////

who elected prz Obama in the first place?

the Saudi,s?Iran?Pakistan?or the islamic majority?

peterhuff,

"Actually it is just a great example to use because most people would object to what Hitler did as being good, and yet it was thought by him and the Nazi regime to be justified, because he was a social Darwinist - he believed that certain races and types of people were less evolved than others - and thus they were a lower kind of 'animal' that he could do away with."

My original statement stands: You have an extremely unhealthy fascination with all things nazi and communist."

"So we have a social convention that does not meet what most social conventions would agree upon as good. So who is 'right?'"

Depends.

"Hey, whatever you like. But don't object to Hitler's Germany on the basis you use - preference, because what somebody likes does not necessarily make it good. Goodness is based on an ideal, not just a preference."

Again, you have an extremely unhealthy fascination with all things nazi and communist.

"Exactly, so when two countries have different values, different standards on what goodness means on a social/moral issue, which is good, which is true?"

Depends.

"Obviously two competing value systems that state exactly the opposite of the other can't both be true, can they?"

Depends.

"Is that any more to your satisfaction?"

No really.

"Happy now that I've rephrased it?"

Actually, I was quite happy before you rephrased it; now that you've rephrased it, I can't really say that I'm any happier, but, by the same token, I can't really say that I'm any less happy; how can one really quantify happiness anyway, as there is no official standard of measurement for happiness, and happiness is such a subjective...

What was the question?

"I never claim myself as an absolute authority. That authority is God."

Which god? Your god? Or, the thousands of other man-make gods?

"Not much; nothing recently."

Give me five!

"I don't even see you as being able to and that is my point."

Well then, I trust that you are not disappointed.

"No, God is."

Which god? Your god? Or, the thousands of other man-make gods?

"You make the assumption that what He has revealed in the Scriptures is not true."

No, I presume that he is a figure of peoples' imagination, and is therefore incapable of revealing anything, except what those people want to believe that he has revealed.

"You base that on you as your highest authority;..."

Yes, I do.

"...an authority that is really no authority at all."

On the contrary; I am the boss of me.

"Your specialty appears to be dodging it."

No, my specialty is doubting it.

GoldenEagles,

"Now, as for yourself, Psolus, I wonder what is going on with you, where you FEEL the need to mock the existence of God’s Angels."

Well, I figure what the hell.

"That is a rather pungently self-destructive attitude I must say."

Oh my, do I need to be concerned?

"You need to be concerned with the disposition of your soul when this life opportunity comes to an end."

So, what if I have forged a relationship with the demonic realm?

"If you have forged during this life, a relationship with the demonic realm, and that would be indicated by a feeling world that registers the emotion of mockery, contempt, and disdain towards God (and his angels) then you need to understand that when your soul transitions out of your body at the end of this life, that you will meet these demons face to face."

What do you think will happen to me then?

"You will understand then why these forces are at the root of all terror."

How do you think that this will manifest itself?

"Their appearance is structured to draw fear out to the surface of your soul from the deepest levels."

Well, what if I believe that I will experience nothing?

"If you are one of those who believe (erroneously) that what you will experience upon your transition is “nothing”, you will be in for the shock of your (after) life."

Can you be more specific?

"In a manner of speaking, you will see your teachers face to face."

What about all of them there homosexuals?

"Now, all homosexuals will face the same fate, as they have forged strong bonds to their demonic handlers."

Do you think that the big guy can break these bonds?

"God our Father cannot break these bonds."

Doesn't he want to break these bonds?

"He would like to, but it is a matter of freewill choice."

Not to worry; I can wait, and then make the freewill choice later, right?

"But, the choice must be made now."

Well damn!

"You cannot wait until after the change called death."

How about after the change called male menopause?

PSolus, I'm off to bed to get some rest for today.

ME: "If good is based on a social convention, then is your preference for Hitler's Germany or perhaps the example of North Korea? What is your taste?"

PSO: "You have an extremely unhealthy fascination with all things nazi and communist."

Actually it is just a great example to use because most people would object to what Hitler did as being good, and yet it was thought by him and the Nazi regime to be justified, because he was a social Darwinist - he believed that certain races and types of people were less evolved than others - and thus they were a lower kind of 'animal' that he could do away with.

So we have a social convention that does not meet what most social conventions would agree upon as good. So who is 'right?'

PSO: "If you think that those two are the only possibilities, what's up with the UK? Greece? France? Sweden? Japan? Australia?

Hey, whatever you like. But don't object to Hitler's Germany on the basis you use - preference, because what somebody likes does not necessarily make it good. Goodness is based on an ideal, not just a preference.

PSO: "All of those countries' cultures are based on different social conventions."

Exactly, so when two countries have different values, different standards on what goodness means on a social/moral issue, which is good, which is true?

Obviously two competing value systems that state exactly the opposite of the other can't both be true, can they?

ME: "The problem with your wishy washy tastes is that when someone does inflict on you something that is really evil then just like everyone else it does matter. When it is done to someone else then it is just a 'maybe' type of judgment."

PSO: "Did you think that through before you started typing?"

Is that any more to your satisfaction?

ME: "What is the point of thinking something if it is not true?"

PSO: "I'll let you rephrase that."

Happy now that I've rephrased it?

ME: "Yet you seem to trust yourself as your absolute authority in making judgments."

PSO: "I certainly don't trust you as an absolute authority in making judgments."

I never claim myself as an absolute authority. That authority is God.

ME: "Why is what you say true?"

PSO: "What makes you think that anything that I say is true?"

Not much; nothing recently.

ME: "You haven't shown any adequate justification for your statements."

PSO: "I haven't tried to; I have no need to."

I don't even see you as being able to and that is my point.

ME: "Why would anything be worth trusting if it is not based on truth?"

PSO: "Are you the arbiter of what is truth?"

No, God is. You make the assumption that what He has revealed in the Scriptures is not true. You base that on you as your highest authority; an authority that is really no authority at all.

ME: "What is truth?"

PSO: "Oh, well, I guess not."

Your specialty appears to be dodging it.

peterhuff,

"That is just my point PSolus, you're not arriving at 'good.'"

Don't you mean that I'm not arriving at what you consider to be "good".

That's OK with me.

"What you are arriving at is something that you like."

As it turns out, it's not always what I like.

"Why does something that you 'like' qualify as something that is truly good?"

What makes you believe that what I "like" qualifies as something that is "truly good"?

"If your standard or measure for 'goodness' is yourself and mine is myself and everyone has a different standard then how do you arrive at good?"

As I originally stated, the way I've done all my life.

"You don't; you arrive at what you like - period."

Sometimes, what I like is good; sometimes, what I like is quite good - period.

"You are your highest authority."

Yes I am.

"That is what makes your world what it is."

That, and many other things.

[bibley stuff expurgated]

"Look around you PSolus."

OK... looking around me... looking around me... looking around me...

"People bully other people, nations bully other nations. The kind of slavery that RCofield was mentioning, not the biblical kind, is all about those in a position of strength dominating and submitting others to their preferences. Wars are fought to gain the upper hand. Politicians try to capture the popular vote to apply their preferences on others, or in many third world countries it is just done by share force."

So, you've noticed that too, huh?

"Your world-view betrays you again."

How can that be? I have no world-view.

"You actually believe that there is a standard to measure goodness on,..."

No I don't; where did you get that crazy idea?

Or, are you just making that up?

"...as much as you try to deny it because you, being stronger do not exploit those who are weaker."

Maybe I'm just a coward.

"Yet others force their personal preferences on you,..."

No they don't.

"...unless of course you can show that they are doing is anything other than personal preferences - that they are actually good values being forced on you?"

What are you trying to force on me?

"As I said, show me how what you say is actually good rather than just what you like."

It's mostly just what I like; the hell with good.

"If you can't then don't use the term 'good.'"

Can I use the term "mahvelous"?

"It means nothing."

Which one, "good" or "mahvelous"?

"Stop borrowing from the Christian world-view that actually believes and can justify goodness, because goodness has a perfect/objective measure."

What makes you think that I'm not borrowing from the Greek world-view, or the Celtic world-view, or some other world-view?

Hi PSolus,

ME: "Ah, I've thought about it for many a year. How would you arrive at good then?"

PSO: "The way I've done all my life."

That is just my point PSolus, you're not arriving at 'good.' What you are arriving at is something that you like. Why does something that you 'like' qualify as something that is truly good? If your standard or measure for 'goodness' is yourself and mine is myself and everyone has a different standard then how do you arrive at good? You don't; you arrive at what you like - period.

You are your highest authority. That is what makes your world what it is.

"In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit." (Judges 21:25)

ME: "If you want to make what is 'good' based on personal preference, and I'm stronger than you, then my personal preference wins out every time. Are you okay with that?"

PSOLUS: "Exactly what kind of world do you live in?"

Look around you PSolus. People bully other people, nations bully other nations. The kind of slavery that RCofield was mentioning, not the biblical kind, is all about those in a position of strength dominating and submitting others to their preferences. Wars are fought to gain the upper hand. Politicians try to capture the popular vote to apply their preferences on others, or in many third world countries it is just done by share force.

PSO: "I've seen dozens of people that I am stronger than, on a daily basis, over several dozens of years, and I have yet to force my personal preferences on them."

Your world-view betrays you again. You actually believe that there is a standard to measure goodness on, as much as you try to deny it because you, being stronger do not exploit those who are weaker.

Yet others force their personal preferences on you, unless of course you can show that they are doing is anything other than personal preferences - that they are actually good values being forced on you? As I said, show me how what you say is actually good rather than just what you like.

If you can't then don't use the term 'good.' It means nothing. Stop borrowing from the Christian world-view that actually believes and can justify goodness, because goodness has a perfect/objective measure.

Concerning the Use of the Term “gay” as a propaganda Master Stroke ...

Let’s admit the truth. The use of the word “gay” by the homosexual movement (to describe themselves) has been a propaganda master stroke. It is like painting the image of an oasis over a sewer.

Where are the people most likely to congregate? Are they most likely to congregate in the actual sewer? Or in the illusion of the oasis?

They will congregate in the illusion of the oasis. This simply takes advantage of human weakness and the well-known mechanics of deception associated with it. Time proven. And utterly workable, as you can see around us today.

As you can see, this utter falsehood, this golden Orwellian nugget of mind twisting doublespeak, the term “gay”, pours off the lips, truly as an act of self-suffocation, of nearly every individual in a leadership position through all sectors of American society. They have all come to live thereby in this fantasy land of good feelings, light, and jocularity, which is (falsely) associated with this Alice in Wonderland creation of the homosexual movement, which they call “gay”.

Yes, they have all come to believe that the sewer, dark and stinky, where the soul is wracked continuously with guilt and fear, is the place that is unreal, and that this supposed oasis (of homosexual jocularity) is the new land of reality.

And they have their technical terms to defend their bubble of illusion. For example, anyone who speaks about the reality of the sewer, which is actually the truth, they call “homophobic” in such a self-satisfied way, even as their very knees sink deeper and deeper into the sludge-like flow thereof.

And the whole world is turned upside down.

These people, who walk in this sewer, dipping their cups there-in for refreshment, imagining it to be the crystal waters of some pure underground stream, these are the people who now fit the definition of wise, righteous, compassionate, and above all, rational and sane.

Truly, in the domain of heaven, when the angels hear anyone use the word “gay” (in reference to homosexuals) it is as if they are putting a dunce cap on their own head. But in the minds of these self-satisfied riders upon the sewer current, when they use the word “gay” they think they wear the very crown of wisdom.

As to those who still have eyes to see, and who speak their warnings about the folly of living a life that descends ever more inescapably into the life of the sewer, which is a world of darkness, where the sun does not shine, where only great colonies of rats live, these prophets of truth serve themselves up on the golden platters of insanity, to be carved up with the sharpest knives of contempt and disdain.

Psolus asks, “ are you a member of .... Opus Angelorum”

No. However, after looking at the website, I see that their views appear to be in harmony with mine when it comes to the importance of God’s Angels. I salute them therefore. On the other hand, I don’t see any substantial focus there on the issue of demons and specifically, on the demonic relationship to the origin of the homoerotic urge which is the most important truth the world needs to hear today. And it will not only hear that truth, it will see that truth through technological development. Through technology, everyone will have the eyes to see.

Now, as for yourself, Psolus, I wonder what is going on with you, where you FEEL the need to mock the existence of God’s Angels. That is a rather pungently self-destructive attitude I must say.

You need to be concerned with the disposition of your soul when this life opportunity comes to an end. If you have forged during this life, a relationship with the demonic realm, and that would be indicated by a feeling world that registers the emotion of mockery, contempt, and disdain towards God (and his angels) then you need to understand that when your soul transitions out of your body at the end of this life, that you will meet these demons face to face. You will understand then why these forces are at the root of all terror. Their appearance is structured to draw fear out to the surface of your soul from the deepest levels.

If you are one of those who believe (erroneously) that what you will experience upon your transition is “nothing”, you will be in for the shock of your (after) life. In a manner of speaking, you will see your teachers face to face.

Now, all homosexuals will face the same fate, as they have forged strong bonds to their demonic handlers. God our Father cannot break these bonds. He would like to, but it is a matter of freewill choice. But, the choice must be made now. You cannot wait until after the change called death.

Hi DITLD,

DITLD: "You [and] Rcofield are the ones who have compared being gay to murder and rape. If you do not meant to be so harsh, then stop being so harsh. That is the point, that you have a hatred of gay people all out of proportion to any supposed immorality that you may project into it from your own personal prejudices."

No, you are wrong, DITLD. I don't hate gay people, I just trust God who determine the way things should be; what is right and what is wrong. I am just like you, I need His grace and mercy in my life as much as you do. You don't recognize this. By His grace I do.

Am I not allowed to speak out on this subject? You keep side-stepping the issue on how you determine what is right, what is good. That is the point I am making.

DITLD: "You claim that I am angry at God, as though being angry at you is the same as being angry at God. You are the spokesman of God. You know what God wants, thinks, and feels, better than the rest of us."

I have found that the same thing that Jesus said to His disciples still applies today to Christians, "All men will hate you because of Me." (Matthew 10:22; Mark 13:13)

You have made it known many times when we have crossed each other's paths on these blogs. Yards and yards of disputing the truth of God's word. Why? So that you can justify your lifestyle? God is calling us to submit to Him that we may find life, true life. Jesus seeks the lost, those who are weary and heavily burdened, that He may give them rest. He calls us to repent and believe in Him, to trust in Him.

How can you love God and yet call Him a liar? How can you love God and not trust what He says? How can you love God and yet accuse Him of all kinds of evil?

Yes, you are angry with God. You lash out at anything to do with the Christian God. The apostle Paul said 'the sinful mind is hostile to God.' (Romans 8:7)

He called believers to not hide His light, to speak out against what is evil (Romans 1:26-27).

DITLD: "I call that hypocrisy, boarding on delusion. Of course, the objective reality is what you observe, and therefore, you WILL ALWAYS WIN every argument, because by definition, your objective reality is always right, and everyone else's subjective reality is always wrong."

What arguments have I won with you? What does it matter what I say unless it is based on what is real, what is true? You have yet to make sense of qualitative values. Where do they come from? What do you measure goodness against? Why is it valid?

DITLD: "We are in the world, to live, to act, to decide, to be; you are in the world to navel-gaze and make sophistic arguments, proving your righteousness over all who disagree with you."

It is the Lord's righteousness that I proclaim. He is the One worthy of worship. You and I have been given the privilege of life and a mind to reason and meditate on God. You live this life as if that is all there is. You live on your own terms as if you or any other human being is the one who makes truth true.

GoldenEagles,

Now that you're back, are you a member of this fun bunch:

http://www.opusangelorum.org/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11699849

If so, how can I join?

DanielintheLionsDen asks, “Why didn't you question Goldeneagles' motivation in attacking [homosexual] people in the name of Christianity?”

I did not attack homosexual people. I am pointing to the demonic influence that is enslaving them. The demons are the creatures that are attacking these individuals. I am the one extending the helping hand.

To most Christians, when they see biblical principles, which the Master Jesus Christ set forth, applied, in a reasonable manner, to current problems, there is no question as to motivation.

And my application of the teaching left by the Master Jesus Christ, on the subject of evil forces possessing individuals, to the subject of homosexuality, is reasonable.

For example, we need only observe that the most powerful aspect of any man’s life (apart from the spiritual domain) is the male attraction to women. This is STRONG. God our Father and Mother built this into Their sons as an immutable structure of the male character.

And so, we must simply ask, what has the power to trample on, and distort, what God our Father and Mother made most powerful in man?

There is no internal force capable of doing this, as all internal forces are of the natural order, and remain harmonious in relationship to that natural order, that is, all other aspects of man’s character remain completely submissive to the male/female attraction apparatus and mechanisms.

The force that distorts this natural order, has to come from the outside. It has to be an alien force. And we see, in the examples where the Master Jesus Christ is casting out demons, an avenue of outside interfere that is able to completely disrupt the inner life of the temple of man.

Therefore, from a biblical standpoint, from the teachings of the Master Jesus Christ himself, we have a road sign that points to the path most likely to lead to a definitive explanation for the homosexual plight.

peterhuff,

"Ah, I've thought about it for many a year. How would you arrive at good then?"

The way I've done all my life.

"If you want to make what is 'good' based personal preference, and I'm stronger than you, then my personal preference wins out every time. Are you okay with that?"

Exactly what kind of world do you live in?

I've seen dozens of people that I am stronger than, on a daily basis, over several dozens of years, and I have yet to force my personal preferences on them.

"If good is based on a social convention, then is your preference for Hitler's Germany or perhaps the example of North Korea? What is your taste?"

You have an extremely unhealthy fascination with all things nazi and communist.

If you think that those two are the only possibilities, what's up with the UK? Greece? France? Sweden? Japan? Australia?

All of those countries' cultures are based on different social conventions.

"The problem with your wishy washy tastes is that when someone does inflict on you something that is really evil then just like everyone else it does become matter. When it is done to someone else then it is just a maybe type of judgment."

Did you think that through before you started typing?

"What is the point of thinking something if it is not a true?"

I'll let you rephrase that.

"Yet you seem to trust yourself as your absolute authority in making judgments."

I certainly don't trust you as an absolute authority in making judgments.

"Why is what you say true?"

What makes you think that anything that I say is true?

"You haven't shown any adequate justification for your statements."

I haven't tried to; I have no need to.

"Why would anything be worth trusting if it is not based on truth?"

Are you the arbiter of what is truth?

"What is truth?"

Oh, well, I guess not.

To be continued...

Now, where were we...

"Again, I have. No objective standard boils down to anything goes as long as you have the might to pull it off. But don't call it 'good.' Call it doing what you want at the expense of what others want."

I'll let you rephrase that.

"What you say brings it out at times."

What, your toaster?

"Again I have. How can an objective standard come from an subjective being?"

Exactly.

"To be objective every possible outcome would have to have been thought of or the ideal would have to have been achieved or realized."

Is that the "truth"?

"God is the only One who fits that bill for He is perfect."

Which god? Your god? Or the thousands of other gods that people have created?

"It is not my 'job' either. I'm just pointing you to the One whose 'right' it is."

Again, one of the thousands of man-made gods?

"If truth is not important to you, if evil doesn't matter then no, it's not your job."

Whew!

"But if goodness is important then it matters. If you care about justice and love what is good, it matters."

How about unicorns and rainbows?

"Nothing, unless what I'm telling you is true, then it matters greatly."

In other word: Nothing.

"If you want to waste your life on meaninglessness chatter, then don't worry about it."

Thanks; I won't worry about it.

"But why waste your time on a forum in which people are searching for meaning unless you are questioning whether there is any too and looking for answers?"

Hey, it's my time to waste.

"I'm probably wrong but you give me the impression that you have been hurt and this is the way you react."

You're not wrong; Cindy Montenegro broke my heart in sixth grade, and I've never been the same.

"You try to make truth absurd."

Oh, you flatterer.

Hi PSolus,

PSO: "Maybe you should think about the possibility that there is no objective standard outside ourselves that determines what is "evil"."

Ah, I've thought about it for many a year. How would you arrive at good then?

If you want to make what is 'good' based personal preference, and I'm stronger than you, then my personal preference wins out every time. Are you okay with that?

If good is based on a social convention, then is your preference for Hitler's Germany or perhaps the example of North Korea? What is your taste?

The problem with your wishy washy tastes is that when someone does inflict on you something that is really evil then just like everyone else it does become matter. When it is done to someone else then it is just a maybe type of judgment.

What is the point of thinking something if it is not a true? Yet you seem to trust yourself as your absolute authority in making judgments. Why is what you say true? You haven't shown any adequate justification for your statements. Why would anything be worth trusting if it is not based on truth?

What is truth?

PSO: "Maybe you should think about the possibility that there is no objective standard outside ourselves that determines what is "good"."

Again, I have. No objective standard boils down to anything goes as long as you have the might to pull it off. But don't call it 'good.' Call it doing what you want at the expense of what others want.

ME: "Your world-view is peeping through again PSolus."

PSO: "Are you sure that you do not see my "world-view" on the piece of toast that you made this morning?"

What you say brings it out at times.

PSO: "Maybe you should think about the possibility that there is no objective standard outside ourselves that determines what is "true"."

Again I have. How can an objective standard come from an subjective being? To be objective every possible outcome would have to have been thought of or the ideal would have to have been achieved or realized. God is the only One who fits that bill for He is perfect.

PSO: "It's not my job to establish moral references; is it yours?"

It is not my 'job' either. I'm just pointing you to the One whose 'right' it is.

PSO: "It's not my job to measure good or evil; is it yours?"

If truth is not important to you, if evil doesn't matter then no, it's not your job. But if goodness is important then it matters. If you care about justice and love what is good, it matters.

PSO: "What is there to take seriously about what you have to say?"

Nothing, unless what I'm telling you is true, then it matters greatly. If you want to waste your life on meaninglessness chatter, then don't worry about it. But why waste your time on a forum in which people are searching for meaning unless you are questioning whether there is any too and looking for answers?

I'm probably wrong but you give me the impression that you have been hurt and this is the way you react. You try to make truth absurd.

DanielintheLionsDen says, “Goldeneagles said horrible, horrible things about [homosexual] people.”

The truth may be painful to hear, but it is not a “horrible, horrible” thing as you say.

By telling you the truth, I am actually extending to you the hand of mercy. I am showing you the way out of the state of slavery in which you find yourself. And neither am I slamming your character. I am pointing out that you have a valuable Identity in God, that that identity is worth saving. Moreover, I am preparing you for the very rude awakening that will come upon you, suddenly, when the technological development which I spoke to before, comes on the scene, where you will be able to see the astral creatures which apparently populate your own forcefield, being a homosexual as you are, and an Atheist to boot.

When you see this with your own eyes, you will realize the truth in my words, when I warn you, that the state of demon association that you indulge, in terms of bending over to the homoerotic urges that flow into your feeling world, from the demonic source, will destroy your soul if you do not take steps to set yourself free.

Rcofield

Goldeneagles said horrible, horrible things about gay people. He said these things from a Christian point of view, in the name of Jesus, and in the name of God. And I replied to defend gay people.

Why did you question my motivations in defending gay people? Why didn't you question Goldeneagles' motivation in attacking gay people in the name of Christianity?

Do you agree with him and his characterizations of the Christian attitude towards gay people? If not, why not speak up? If you don't speak up, the impression is left that you agree with him, especially when you speak up to criticize me, one of his critics.

You are either on God's side, or not. I do not think you are.

Peterhuff

You are Rcofield are the ones who have compared being gay to murder and rape. If you do not meant to be so harsh, then stop being so harsh. That is the point, that you have a hatred of gay people all out of proportion to any supposed immoraltiy that you may project into it from your own personal predjudices.

You claim that I am angry at God, as though being angy at you is the same as being angry at God. You are the spokesman of God. You know what God wants, thinks, and feels, better than the rest of us.

I call that hypocrisy, bording on delusion. Of course, the objective reality is what you observe, and therefore, you WILL ALWAYS WIN every argument, because by definition, your objective reality is always right, and everyone else's subjective realisty is always wrong.

We are in the world, to live, to act, to decide, to be; you are in the world to navel-gaze and make sophistric arguments, proving your righteousness over all who disagree with you.

I am here to tell you once again, being gay is not a sin; it is not an abomination; there is nothing wrong with being gay, except that people like you don't like gay people.

People like you, who persist in speaking falsely for God, that gay people are an abomination, are the reason that so many gay people are unhappy; people like you induce young people into depression, and suicide; do you take any repsonbility for the suicides of youg gay people? do you encourage it? I think you are guilty.

Peter Huff

You refer to the trexts as the word of God. But the texts were not written by the hand of God but by the hand of man. But even if you would like to consult the texts, where in the ten commandments is there anything about being gay? Where in the Gospels, does Jesus say anything about being gay?

Your arguments are sophistry. You are annointing your subjective vision as the true objective view of God. But your so-called objective reality is as arbitrary as all the rest that you condemn.

Why not instead of saying that I am inferior to you, why not let us say that you are inferior to me?

peterhuff,

"Maybe you should think about the possibility that there is a objective standard outside ourselves that determines what is evil."

Maybe you should think about the possibility that there is no objective standard outside ourselves that determines what is "evil".

"Evil is doing whatever is contrary to good."

Maybe you should think about the possibility that there is no objective standard outside ourselves that determines what is "good".

"Your world-view is peeping through again PSolus."

Are you sure that you do not see my "world-view" on the piece of toast that you made this morning?

"You're making a moral distinction based on postmodern thinking that the person is the one who determines what is true."

No, you simply believe that I am.

"Truth is true regardless of whether or not you believe it to be so, and truth is objective in the sense that what is true can never be false."

Maybe you should think about the possibility that there is no objective standard outside ourselves that determines what is "true".

"First, you would have to establish where your moral reference comes from, and if it was not objective and absolute, then what makes it moral?"

It's not my job to establish moral references; is it yours?

"If you can't do that then don't speak to me about what is right and wrong for what does your preferences, your opinion have to do with a qualitative value. Values are based on ideals, a perfect standard. What do you have to measure good or evil by?"

It's not my job to measure good or evil; is it yours?

"Yes, I know PSolus, you know nothing; you believe nothing. You just pluck this stuff out of thin air, or at least that is what you have been telling me on other blogs. What is there to take seriously about what you have to say?"

What is there to take seriously about what you have to say?

Hi PSolus,

PSOLUS: ""Evil" is a superstitious word that is used to describe something that person A does not want person B to do, irrespective of the fact that the thing that person B does in no way affects person A, or any other person, for that matter."

Maybe you should think about the possibility that there is a objective standard outside ourselves that determines what is evil. Evil is doing whatever is contrary to good.

Your world-view is peeping through again PSolus. You're making a moral distinction based on postmodern thinking that the person is the one who determines what is true.

Truth is true regardless of whether or not you believe it to be so, and truth is objective in the sense that what is true can never be false.

First, you would have to establish where your moral reference comes from, and if it was not objective and absolute, then what makes it moral? If you can't do that then don't speak to me about what is right and wrong for what does your preferences, your opinion have to do with a qualitative value. Values are based on ideals, a perfect standard. What do you have to measure good or evil by?

Yes, I know PSolus, you know nothing; you believe nothing. You just pluck this stuff out of thin air, or at least that is what you have been telling me on other blogs. What is there to take seriously about what you have to say?

Hi DITLD,

ME: "Without God there is no objective standard ... "

DITLD: "But that is not true, since God cannot be observed objectively, and he does not speak with a voice, objectively, but any speaking he does, he does through chosen human voices, such as your own."

Are you making an objective, true statement here? If so, can you point me to your objective foundation upon which this claim rests? Or is it just your personal preference coming through once again?

Do you believe in logic? Obviously you do because you would not be able to communicate without the use of it. So you look for an 'objective observation' of God all the while you use something that can not be observed by the physical senses. Show me the physical entity that is logic?

Do you not know that God is Spirit? Do you not know that God transcends His creation? If not then maybe, just maybe, you are the ignorant one here, not the Christian.

DITLD: "All references to God are arbitrary, just as arbitray as free-thinking references, and atheistic references; there are the many, many, many interpretations of God among the many, many relgions of the world, not to mention, the many versions of Christianity.

Is there anything that is not arbitrary with you? I would agree with you on every statement but the one you apply to the Christian God as being arbitrary. And just because someone is capable of misinterpreting the Bible does not mean that there is not a correct interpretation to be found; after all it is His Word of truth. He has provided us with that outside ourselves reference/standard.

DITLD: "You are deluding yourself to think that your own personal subjective thoughts are objective, that everyone else should obey and bow down to."

You're missing the point again, and that is that there is an objective final authority that we can appeal to. What is yours? You are also missing the point that there is a correct understanding and interpretation of His word. If there wasn't then language would say nothing. I have a meaning in mind when I correspond with you. If you don't get it then you have failed to get what it is that I am saying to you, my intended meaning.

DITLD: "You act as God, and speak as God, and tell us all what God wants, but you do not know, and more often than not you are wrong."

You are making lots of assertions throughout this post Daniel. I'm just reiterating what the word of God says. If you think I'm changing it then we can go to the texts.

DITLD: "On the entire subject of gay people, you could not possibly more mixed up and confused, and as I said before, I do not blame you for being ignorant, but it is nothing to be proud of."

Saying so does not necessarily make it so. Have you ever considered that maybe you are the confused one (John 8:31-32), the proud one who will not bend the knee to Jesus?

You are the one in bondage, a slave to sin, for you have not been rescued from your plight. You want to do things your proud way, the epitome of slavery to sin.

peterhuff,

"Evil" is a superstitious word that is used to describe something that person A does not want person B to do, irrespective of the fact that the thing that person B does in no way affects person A, or any other person, for that matter.

Hi DITLD,

DITLD: "But RCofield DID compare being gay to murder and rape. And therefore, THAT IS THE QUESTION."

You are missing the point I am making, or that RCofield would hold to as well, and that is the question of right and wrong. That is the ultimate question. The rest is just fodder. If right and wrong just boil down to your personal preference over mine (based on nothing more than subjective opinion) then right and wrong cannot be established. The only thing that can be established is might at the barrel of a gun. Is that the kind of world you want?

You continue to make moral judgments without being able to make sense of why your moral judgments are true. Truth is absolute. Something that is true cannot be true and false at the same time and in the same relationship, and yet we see different social conventions claiming that their ideology is the 'right' one. So you have one social convention stating that homosexuality is 'wrong' and another social convention stating that it is 'right.' Now which is it, right or wrong?

Is Hitler's Germany wrong after all? Is the murder of six million Jewish people by the Nazi regime wrong? Is the murder of 11 million deemed sub-human by the Nazi regime wrong. Not if the society as a whole does not believe it to be wrong by your method of reasoning. So why is what I believe wrong and what you believe right?

DITLD: "You are mired in a primitive Medieval paradigm of the world. I do not take much of what you say seriously, and regard most of it as BUNK."

And you are mired in a blurry funk of postmodern thinking that finds it hard to distinguish what truth is any more. The intellectual gate-keepers of society has now filtered down to the masses, persuading them that anything goes, as long as it is not a Christian world-view, the only one that can make sense of all this mess of human reasoning.

DITLD: "The point is, that there is nothing wrong with being gay. Whenever I hear people like you making your false declarations and slanders against gay people, I will do whatever I can to set the record straight. That is my right."

You haven't set any record straight. You never answered one of my questions. You talked around them, and you never offered one iota of proof to establish what you believe to be truth. All you have stated is your personal preference, your subjective opinion, as you always do. Is that all morals boil down to with you?

Why are you so angry with God and pass judgment when you have nothing to offer in return that makes sense but 'I believe it to be so?' How can you morally justify anything? Let me tell you how, because you are borrowing from the Christian framework that reasons correctly that there is an ultimate, objective, absolute standard, and that standard is God. Murder is wrong, rape is wrong, adultery is wrong, stealing is wrong, lying is wrong, making an idol is wrong because it replaces what is true with what is false, and good with what is bad (evil).

Peterhuff

"Without God there is no objective standard ... "

But that is not true, since God cannot be observed objectively, and he does not speak with a voice, objectively, but any speaking he does, he does through chosen human voices, such as your own.

All references to God are arbitrary, just as arbitray as free-thinking references, and atheistic references; there are the many, many, many interpretations of God among the many, many relgions of the world, not to mention, the many versions of Christianity.

You are deluding yourself to think that your own personal subjective thoughts are objective, that everyone else should obey and bow down to.

You act as God, and speak as God, and tell us all what God wants, but you do not know, and more often than not you are wrong.

On the entire subject of gay people, you could not possibly more mixed up and confused, and as I said before, I do not blame you for being ignorant, but it is nothing to be proud of.

Peterhuff

"The question is not about equating murder or rape to being gay, but whether or not homosexuality is moral or right, and that boils down to your or anyone else's ultimate authority and standard."

But RCofield DID compare being gay to murder and rape. And therefore, THAT IS THE QUESTION.

You are mired in a primitive Medieval paradigm of the world. I do not take much of what you say seriously, and regard most of it as BUNK.

The point is, that there is nothing wrong with being gay. Whenever I hear people like you making your false declarations and slanders against gay people, I will do whatever I can to set the record straight. That is my right.

GoldenEagles,

Is this where you are getting all your ideas:

http://www.opusangelorum.org/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11699849

Hello again Danielinthelionsden,

Please forgive me for being frank and direct and not mincing words yet once again.

DITLD to RCofield: "If you equate murder and rape to being gay, then that makes you an ignorant person. Do you choose to be ignorant? That is a hard question; I think probably not. Although, it often seems to me that people like you are pridefully ignorant. It is not a crime to be ignorant, but likewise, I can see nothing to be proud of in it, either."

The question is not about equating murder or rape to being gay, but whether or not homosexuality is moral or right, and that boils down to your or anyone else's ultimate authority and standard.

Daniel, are you sure that you are not the one who is ignorant in knowing what is right and wrong? You are confusing your preference/choice/feelings/opinions to an 'ought' or 'should,' an objective standard and measure.

You first have to establish that your subjective preference does come from an objective source or final authority before you go dishing around words like ignorant or proud.

Unless you can do that do you not perhaps think that it is you who are ignorant and proud?

If you can't do that then why is your perception or feelings something that I or anyone else 'should' live by? Why does what you believe correspond to truth or why is what you believe something that I 'should' live by?

Judging from what you have written on countless forums in the past you are incapable of showing why.

It is just a brutish way of forcing your opinion on others, by using the 'bigot' or 'ignorant' card to push the gay 'rights' agenda.

The reason I do not accept homosexuality as 'right' is because God has revealed it to be wrong. Before you go judging me as pig-headed just try and make sense of anything without God. You will find that it is an impossible battle to win. I have never seen an unbeliever make sense of it yet.

Without God there is no objective standard, just might casting the deciding blow. Are you prepared to live by that standard? If so then throw away the idea/ideal of right and wrong, or any qualitative values for that matter.

What you will have left is anarchy, where everyone does what he sees fit in his own eyes, or dictatorship, where one person or maybe a group impose their preference on everyone else. Which do you prefer? But don't call it good or bad.

schnauzer21 says, “Your religion means nothing to me. I do not follow it. You are free to do as you wish, but I expect the same from you.”

The institutions of liberty were built in America only because of the intercession of Divine Providence. This is America’s fundamental bedrock principle of both origin and survival.

We understand that if our nation does not continue to serve the purposes of God our Father, then the hand of Divine Providence will be withdrawn, and our institutions will fall into a pile of rubble. The defense of the moral order is the effort to secure the very survival of the nation.

In this regard, we must understand that God did not bring this Great Nation into Existence, to become the global advocate for moral debauchery. As America becomes more and more of a beacon for moral debauchery, the hand of Divine Providence is slowly withdrawn. And we are supposed to be paying attention, and reading the signs, in terms of what is coming upon the nation, as a result of the decreasing role of God in the equation of national security.

For example, why is it, that we face for the first time in our history, the very real prospect of terrorist detonated nuclear weapons in one or more major American cities? How is it that we have come to this place where all national security experts say that such an attack is inevitable?

Where is the hand of Divine Providence when we need it? It has been withdrawn to the extent that the people of America have abandoned the path of (moral) development and progress exemplified by the vision of the shining city on the hill. Homosexuality is no part of any shining city on the hill, I can assure you. This is because, the condition of demon enslavement is no part of the vision of the shining city on the hill.

The gigantic mudslide of moral depravity that is slowing engulfing this nation, must be stopped, if the nation is to survive. If you understood the role that God must play in our national security, you would see why this movement towards homosexual respectability is a movement that is accelerating not simply the moral demise of our institutions and our nation, but its physical demise. If this trend continues, our children will find themselves living in a land where the principle of freedom is nowhere to be seen.

Already the chains of economic bondage are wrapped tightly around their ankles. This is before they are even born. As this trend continues more chains will be added. Ultimately, freedom will be no more than a distant memory.

Actually, this paradigm, in terms of demonic control and manipulation, explains a lot in this world. For example, where does the intense hatred and anger come from which drives terrorists in their insatiable desire to destroy America? Answer, these terrorists are the pawns of their own class of demon controllers. This category of demons drive people to throw themselves against America in ways that cause physical destruction. The category of demons which are behind the state of homosexual enslavement, these demons drive these individuals to throw themselves at America, to destroy the internal moral order. Two different avenues of attack, both with the same end in mind, the destruction of America.

DanielintheLionsDen says, “If you equate murder and rape to being [homosexual], then that makes you an ignorant person.”

The common link between murder, rape, homosexuality and Atheism itself, is demonic domination. Each behavior pattern exhibits a situation where the individual is being forcefully pushed beyond the boundaries of the natural order. The individual gives the demonic presence access to the feeling world through the astral body, wherein, it floods the feeling world (of its victim) with very strong feelings of hatred and anger, which go towards the destruction of the target individual, behavior which you have yourself exhibited on this very thread.

As I said before, this hatred based desire to put a religious believer into a mental institution, is common to the Atheist/Communists who ruled the Soviet Union for over 70 years. These Atheists were all tools of the dark side in this respect as well. I would like for you to address this common behavior pattern.

What is it that explains this desire to put religious believers into mental institutions, if it is not this common thread of intense hatred that the demon whips up in the feeling world (of its victim) against those who pose the greatest threat to their control?

Murder and rape and homosexuality are in the same category: moral decisions/behaviors. All 3 affect other people, and the self. The question is, how do we decide which is wrong and which is right? There is no secular standard, all moral stances fall back on personal beliefs that go against nature. Nature tells us only that physics and chemistry are true, therefore morals are inherently supernatural or irrational; not found in nature or the rational laws and mechanics of the universe. Now we see everyone has a "religion." All you people are doing is vainly arguing about your personal opinions and condescending to others for doing exactly what you are doing. All morals are personal opinions, unless you subscribe to the moral system of an objective 3rd party, such as a Creator or Universal Truth.

"If you equate murder and rape to being gay, then that makes you an ignorant person. Do you choose to be ignorant? That is a hard question; I think probably not. Although, it often seems to me that people like you are pridefully ignorant. It is not a crime to be ignorant, but likewise, I can see nothing to be proud of in it, either."

So...anyone who doesn't agree with you on the homosexual issue is an intolerant, ignorant, homophobe?

There is nothing wrong with being gay. Nothing is wrong. Nothing is right. Screw your sister, your dog, your neighbor's wife. Screw some kids and some corpses and some invalids. Nothing is wrong. That means everything is good. Except having morals; that is always bad. My views are more scientific than yours, so yours are deluded. Gay people are composed of 4.5 million particles per cubic foot of homotons, similar to protons and neutrons but demonstably gayer. We don't hate the tiger for eating the bunny, do we? People are born gay, they are born as pedophiles, murderers, conservatives, alchoholics, homosexuals. There is nothing to do about it.

RCofield

If you equate murder and rape to being gay, then that makes you an ignorant person. Do you choose to be ignorant? That is a hard question; I think probably not. Although, it often seems to me that people like you are pridefully ignorant. It is not a crime to be ignorant, but likewise, I can see nothing to be proud of in it, either.

DANIELINTHELIONSDEN,

"On the matter of the persecution of gay people, I am engaged in the controversy as is generally understood to be that conservative Christians of all sorts, and even conservative people, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and everyone else, consider gay people to be an abomination, an offense to God,and that liberal more free-thinking people, who take a more modern outlook, consider gay people to be a normal part of humanity and of life."

I, like most "conservative people" I know, consider murder, rape, incest, polygamy, prostitution, theft, and abortion to be an offense to both God and man, and I see them in no way being a "normal part of humanity and life."

Do those views make me a "wicked homophobic?"

I think the youth became departed when the old hoggy women hopping around screaming for the government to keep their hands off their Medicare and their male counterparts in dress-up clothes were preventing civil discourse (and the SBC offering asides of legitimacy to their hooligan ways). Since the youth will live in the remains, they likely found things more effective to do in their lives, now and ever.

RCofield

On the matter of the persecution of gay people, I am engaged in the controversy as is generally understood to be that conservative Christians of all sorts, and even conservative people, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and everyone else, consider gay people to be an abomination, an offense to God,and that liberal more free-thinking people, who take a more modern outlook, consider gay people to be a normal part of humanity and of life.

Your postion would seem clear to me, but if it is not, you are free to clafify it.

*****the election results of 2010 will lead to big changes in Washington and far beyond.that in itself is good news .but all this must be put in a truly christian context*****

i just want Al Mohler to explain how this context will be looking like?

DANIELINTHELIONSDEN,

"My inordinate reflex is towards justice and what is right and good, as opposed to a pretense of righteousness, cloaked in lies, deceptions, and false teachings."

Exactly what "pretense of righteousness" and "lies," "deceptions," and "false teachings" are you referring to?

"You are the one who has some 'spainin' to do, not me, you who seek to attach a wicked homophobia to the teachings of Christ."

Where, exactly, have you seen me "attaching a wicked homophobia to the teachings of Christ?"

"You do not mean to tell me that for one moment you take seriously the rants of GoldenEagles, who attributes human sexual orientation to a perturbation in the astral plane?"

GoldenEagles is on his/her own.

Posted by: GoldenEagles "I think Mr. Schnauzer21, that your idea of what the country was founded on and once stood for, is very distorted. This is the problem of looking through the “gay” lense, as that lense is nearly opaque, and characterized by falsehood. As I have pointed out before, there is nothing less “gay” on the entire planet than a homosexual, who is in a state of inner psychological agony at all times, due to the fact that a demonic presence is corrupting and distorting the God-Given identity. They are overcome by guilt most of the time, and this is why they are DEMANDING a show of respect from the people, through the force of law, as a counterbalance to this internal battle, which they are losing."
--------------------------------
First of all, that would "Miss" Schnauzer21, I am a women.

Now, The only gay people i have met that are unhappy, are those that have had their loved ones turn against them for no other reason than their (the family's) religion tells them to hate their child, sibling, etc. Personally I am quite happy. I have a great loving family and circle of friends, a fabulous partner, decent job, house, cars, etc. I am enjoying my life.

Now as for your statement "They are overcome by guilt most of the time, and this is why they are DEMANDING a show of respect from the people, through the force of law"- the only people trying to MAKE laws are the religious bigots who are trying to force us to be second class citizens. DADT, DOMA, etc. all laws created by you and yours to separate us from society. All we seek to do is get rid of those highly descriminatory, basesless, laws. Your religion means nothing to me. I do not follow it. You are free to do as you wish, but I expect the same from you.

Goldeneagle

"There is considerable evidence for the reality of demon possession today."

No there is not.

This paranoid delusion is part of your illness. Of course you don't recognize it; that is part of it too.

I believe that people, such as yourself, with mental illness, should be respected, and not demonized, and they should be cared for and helped if at all possible.

But when people like you begin to express symptoms that are aggressive and threatenting, then I believe that it is the responsibililty of society to have people such as you committed to psychiatric care, against your will, if necessary, so that you do not harm other people or yourself.

You have made definite statements which I regard as dangerous, to your fellow man, and also, indicating a possible tendency towards suicide.

DanielintheLionsDen says, “Much of what you have said regarding demon posession and the influence of an astral plane upon personality, may have been a valid view point, one thousand years ago ... “

There is considerable evidence for the reality of demon possession today. You need only research the Ritual of Exorcism. The Catholic Church I believe have priests who specialize in exorcism. This has been an ongoing tradition dating from the times of Jesus Christ himself. I believe that there are many ministers within the Protestant branch of the Church who also do a lot of work in the area of exorcism. Moreover, I have personally confronted individuals that were demon possessed, and there is no doubt about it. I have read accounts of near death experiences, where people report, instead of going up into the light, they report going down the other way, and bear witness to demonic presences. The reality of the existence of demons is as real today, at it was 2000 years ago when the Master Jesus Christ taught his followers how to cast out devils. This is part of the work of the disciples of Jesus Christ.

Now, who has a vested interest in making people believe that demons do not exist? Who has a vested interest in making a mockery of one of the key teachings of the Master Jesus Christ? Why, it is the demons themselves. The intensity with which you are reacting to this subject area points in that direction.

DanielintheLionsDen says, “it is only your anonymyty here that prevents direct intervention of mental health care professionals.”

I would point out that this is exactly what the Communists did to religious believers in the old Soviet Union. They rounded them up and put them in mental institutions. Communists were Militant Atheists who reacted to the expression of religious belief with the same kind of intense intolerance as you are exhibiting. And that is why I again get the sense you are speaking from an Atheist viewpoint.

Though I admit I am confused as to why you would choose a screen name “DanielintheLionsDen” if you were an Atheist, as that has strong religious connotations.

DanielintheLionsDen says, “I have experience with people like you.”

I think that is probably a truthful statement.

GoldenEagles

I am not speaking from an atheistic viewpoint, any more than you are speaking from a Christian viewpoint.

Much of what you have said regarding demon posession and the influence of an astral plane upon personality, may have been a valid view point, one thousand years ago.

But today, such a viewpoint may indicate a serious mental illness, a religous-mania, a Jesus-mania, and it is only your anonymyty here that prevents direct intervention of mental health care professionals. If you speak and behave in your personal life as you do here, then I am quite sure you a very big problem for your friends, your neighbors, and especially, for your family.

People like you, who do not get the proper treatment, often end up in suicide.

I have experience with people like you.

GoldenEagles

I am not speaking from an atheistic viewpoint, any more than you are speaking from a Christian viewpoint.

Much of what you have said regarding demon posession and the influence of an astral plane upon personality, may have been a valid view point, one thousand years ago.

But today, such a viewpoint may indicate a serious mental illness, a religous-mania, a Jesus-mania, and it is only your anonymyty here that prevents direct intervention of mental health care professionals. If you speak and behave in your personal life as you do here, then I am quite sure you a very big problem for your friends, your neighbors, and especially, for your family.

People like you, who do not get the proper treatment, often end up in suicide.

I have experience with people like you.

RCofield

My inordinate reflex is towards justice and what is right and good, as opposed to a pretense of righteousness, cloaked in lies, deceptions, and false teachings.

You are the one who has some 'spainin' to do, not me, you who seek to attach a wicked homophobia to the teachings of Christ.

You do not mean to tell me that for one moment you take seriously the rants of GoldenEagles, who attributes human sexual orientation to a perturbation in the astral plane?

DANIELINTHELIONSDEN,

"There is nothing wrong with being gay. It is not a sin. It is not bad. Gay people are not bad, they are good. In fact, gay people are often more clever, creative, musical, and artistic than straight people. You are the one who is a dull-witted weirdo, not gay people."

I've watched you respond similarly on the issue of homosexuality for some time now, and it seems you have an inordinately reflexive tendency on this issue. I've just gotta ask this question:

Are you a homosexual? Or is someone who is close to you a homosexual?

APAGANPLACE,

"The Calvinistic rhetoric only goes so deep."

I find that a fascinating statement. Care to elaborate?

DanielintheLionsDen says, “There is nothing wrong being [homosexual] ...”

This is not true. There are several very destructive consequences associated with allowing one’s temple to be possessed by a demonic presence. I will mention the first and most important point.

The possessing demon is engaged in the process of destroying the soul of the victim. If the soul is not set free from the demonic presence, the soul will be lost. The soul is destroyed through the injection of the poison of contempt and disdain (directed towards God our Father and his laws) into the astral body. As the soul ingests this poison, the soul itself takes on the posture of contempt and disdain towards God. When the divine soul fabric takes on the coloration of contempt and disdain towards God, that portion of the soul fabric, which has been lifted into the state of self-conscious awareness, is destroyed. The longer the soul remains in the enslaved state, the more soul fabric is destroyed. Once all the soul fabric is destroyed, the temple becomes a cesspool of hatred for God himself. In that situation, the soul is lost. That’s why the Master Jesus Christ warned, “fear not those who can destroy the body, but fear those who can destroy both the body and soul in hell.” The term hell is the lower dimension of the astral plane where the demons reside, and which is a domain of hatred.

For the People of God, the highest priority there is, if they want to remain in the Good Graces of God, is to stop all activities which reinforce the demon induced delusion that nothing is wrong with the state of homosexual slavery. These delusion must not be reinforced, amplified, or supported in any way. The life of a soul is at stake.

DanielintheLionsDen says, “the idea of demonic posession, and your reference to an "astral" plane is absurd ... “

One of the most important aspects of the ministry of the Master Jesus Christ was in the casting out of “devils”. I am using an equivalent term “demons”. When YOU can walk on water, turn water into wine, multiply the loaves and fishes, heal the sick, and raise the dead, then I will take your knee-jerk categorical rejection of “demons” more seriously. Until that time I will assume that you are speaking out of an Atheist viewpoint. Which is also a demon instigated condition of feeling world polarization.

And moreover, until that time, it will continue to represent the strongest point of wisdom which the human mind can initially contain, which counsels respect and deference for the example of the Master Jesus Christ, and lessons represented in the various things he did during his ministry.

When the Master Jesus Christ was casting out devils, you can be sure that these were not figments of his imagination. They were real forces of darkness, which were tormenting the possessed, which enter into the feeling world of the individual through the avenues of vulnerability created by acts of rebellion against God our Father and his laws. As the Master said, on more than one occasion, “go and sin no more lest a worst thing come upon thee.”

The forces of darkness operate upon a plane of existence that is unseen by the human eye. This principle is not exclusive to demons.

The Master Jesus Christ operates upon a plane of existence that is unseen by the human eye.

The Holy Angels operate upon a plane of existence that is unseen by the human eye.

The plane of existence upon which demons operate is congruent with the feeling world of mankind. The lowest part of that spectrum is called the astral plane. The polluted feeling world of an embodied individual is known as the astral body. The demons, which exist on the astral plane, enter into the vulnerable astral body of the victim, in this case, we are speaking about homosexuals, through holes in the aura that are created by these very acts of rebellion.

Again, God-Centered devotional practices are designed to assist the soul in building up a level of light in the aura that will shield the individual against these kinds of demonic attacks. Homosexuals as a group neglected this important responsibility, and they are paying the price for it.

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.

I agree! As a Christian our hope is not in politics, it's in Jesus!

GoldenEagles

There is nothing wrong being gay, except for all of the gay-haters like you, who hate gay people, and seek to demonize them, marginalize them, bully them, torment them, punish them, beat them, and even to kill them.

Your religious ideas on gay people are nothing more than trash, junk religion, nothing more than a justification for your brute animal hatred of gay people, you personal predjudice.

It is my opinion that being gay, that is, sexual orientation, is not a choice. That also seems to be your opinion, since you relate it to some sort of demonic posession. However, the idea of demonic posession, and your reference to an "astral" plane is absurd; this shows confused and chaotic thinking, either of a person mentally diseased, or then, of a very ignornant person, utterly devoid of a valid modern world-view.

There is nothing wrong with being gay. It is not a sin. It is not bad. Gay people are not bad, they are good. In fact, gay people are often more clever, creative, musical, and artistic than straight people. You are the one who is a dull-witted weirdo, not gay people.

GoldenEagles,

"...there is nothing less “gay” on the entire planet than a homosexual,..."

Really?

I have found most homosexuals to be quite gay.

Where, exactly, are you meeting all of these non-gay homosexuals?

schnauzer21 says, “ GoldenEagles, it is people like you that are going to cause this country to end up a third world theocracy. I just hope I am long gone before the likes of you completes their mission to destroy everything this country was founded on and once stood for. Truely disgusting.”

I think Mr. Schnauzer21, that your idea of what the country was founded on and once stood for, is very distorted. This is the problem of looking through the “gay” lense, as that lense is nearly opaque, and characterized by falsehood. As I have pointed out before, there is nothing less “gay” on the entire planet than a homosexual, who is in a state of inner psychological agony at all times, due to the fact that a demonic presence is corrupting and distorting the God-Given identity. They are overcome by guilt most of the time, and this is why they are DEMANDING a show of respect from the people, through the force of law, as a counterbalance to this internal battle, which they are losing.

As to the Foundation of our Nation ...

As an example of what that foundation of our nation actually consists of, I would quote the words of General George Washington, as being universally representative of the belief structure of the people of that day, which formed the foundation for the victory of the revolution, and which forms the foundation upon which all our freedoms stand today.

"The Hon. Continental Congress having been pleased to allow a Chaplain to each Regiment, with the pay of Thirty-three Dollars and one third pr month -- The Colonels or commanding officers of each regiment are directed to procure Chaplains accordingly; persons of good Characters and exemplary lives -- To see that all inferior officers and soldiers pay them a suitable respect and attend carefully upon religious exercises. The blessing and protection of Heaven are at all times necessary but especially so in times of public distress and danger -- The General hopes and trusts, that every officer and man, will endeavor so to live, and act, as becomes a Christian Soldier defending the dearest Rights and Liberties of his country."

From General Orders, (July 9, 1776) George Washington Papers at the
Library of Congress, 1741-1799: Series 3g Varick Transcripts

As another indicator of the actual composition of our national foundation, it is important to understand that the practice of School Prayer was a valued tradition throughout many States from the very founding as well, until the U.S. Supreme Court, using a grossly distorted interpretation of the 14th amendment, declared the practice unconstitutional in 1962. The majority of the people would have cast that decision down, but the high court operates in a niche of absolute power which is beyond the reach of the will of the people, sort of like the very institution of theocratic control which you seem so concerned about.

The author's *wrong,* by the way, on the idea this means 'Obama's liberal ideals were rejected by the American people,' ...These ideals were *frustrated* in large measure by an obstructionist GOP that stopped *everything* but financial and health care 'reforms' that had little left of 'liberalism' *in* them by the time the corporations had their way.

This is an election 'won' by suppressing the progressive votes, particularly the youth, with a sense it 'doesn't matter.'

By a corporate media not calling out the Tea Party candidates and GOP on intolerant position and instead reading their press releases claiming to be about the 'budget' ...while having their 'Values voters rallies' full of extremist hate and callous, if actually completely misguided selfishness. With a cross on it.

Like with so many things, the conservatives and Teabaggers loved the *rhetoric,* but didn't know the *facts...* And while they opposed a lot of things they were told to oppose like health care and government programs, if you asked them, they wanted *everything in them and more,* ...even if they didn't want to pay for it.

They say they 'hate government' but expect there to be roads and emergency services and all the rest, just like anyone. The Calvinistic rhetoric only goes so deep.

This is part of why the intolerance agenda is going to be pushed: discrimination and theocratic control and oppressing women and minorities is usually pretty cheap... Up front.

But we pay for them down the line. Have been all along.

>Remember this. The source of the
> homoerotic urge is in the cold, black,
>hate-filled, heart of a demonic
>slavemaster residing on the astral plane.

Is this a science fiction novel or do you actually belong to a UFO cult?

It sounds more like the tormented mind of a fundie that is obsessed with gladiator movies.

A common mistake that is being made in several of these replies is the mistake of classifying ALL evangelicals as part of the "Religious Right."

The religious right represents only a small minority of evangelicals. Most of us didn't "buy into" this dim-witted ideology.

I'm fairly certain Dr. Mohler didn't either.

But not to worry. You still wouldn't agree with our world-view.

GoldenEagles, it is people like you that are going to cause this country to end up a third world theocracy. I just hope I am long gone before the likes of you completes their mission to destroy everything this country was founded on and once stood for.

Truely disgusting.

Did God Create Homosexuals? NO.

lufrank1 says, "IF God made evangelicals - - - the SAME God made [homosexuals]!"

The soul which has been led onto the path of evangelism, which is a path that is intended to expand the light, and bring the soul unto eternal life, indeed, God made that soul.

The soul which has been led onto the path of homosexuality, a path designed by demons to destroy the soul, and to rob it of any opportunity to fulfill its eternal destiny, indeed, God made that soul too.

God made both of these souls. One soul is making every effort to do the right thing, and to make it back home to its heavenly estate. The other soul has been shanghaied into a life of slavery to the forces of darkness. The first story is one of hope. The latter a story of tragedy.

Remember this. The source of the homoerotic urge is in the cold, black, hate-filled, heart of a demonic slavemaster residing on the astral plane. The homoerotic urge is broadcast into the astral body of the vulnerable soul. If the soul identifies with the urge, and acts on it, the soul is then hooked, and becomes a slave to that demon, who can pull and tug the chain at will, from that point forward. At this point there is is very little possibility of resistance to this pulling and tugging, because through the free will choice to act out the urge, the victim has allowed the demon to get control of the central nervous system, through the feeling world. This is a state of slavery. And God did not create this state of slavery.

Any soul can become vulnerable to this process of enslavement in one of two ways. First, by neglecting the necessary devotional practices that are required to build up a forcefield of light in the aura, which would provide a shield against this kind of manipulation. Second, by neglecting the concomitant discipline of relinquishing allegiances to error, which are chinks in the armor, which provide pathways through any pre-established shield of light.

God our Father and Mother, they have the power to set their precious children free, but the child must ask for help, and sincerely so. However, the imprisoned soul faces a dilemma in this regard, because the demon, in injecting the homoerotic urge, also injects the poison of its own disdain and contempt towards God into the feeling world, and in the same way that the victim has identified with the homoerotic urge, the victim identifies with this feeling of contempt and disdain towards God, and thus, cannot FEEL inspired to reach out the hand of the heart for help.
This is a great dilemma.

A soul with a preestablished devotional pattern is easier to save, because that soul already has a habit pattern of asking God for help. Though if they go too long with asking God for help, the barrier of disdain will build up, and offer the same dilemma to that soul as well.

Did God Create Homosexuals? NO.

lufrank1 says, "IF God made evangelicals - - - the SAME God made [homosexuals]!"

The soul which has been led onto the path of evangelism, which is a path that is intended to expand the light, and bring the soul unto eternal life, indeed, God made that soul.

The soul which has been led onto the path of homosexuality, a path designed by demons to destroy the soul, and to rob it of any opportunity to fulfill its eternal destiny, indeed, God made that soul too.

God made both of these souls. One soul is making every effort to do the right thing, and to make it back home to its heavenly estate. The other soul has been shanghaied into a life of slavery to the forces of darkness. The first story is one of hope. The latter a story of tragedy.

Remember this. The source of the homoerotic urge is in the cold, black, hate-filled, heart of a demonic slavemaster residing on the astral plane. The homoerotic urge is broadcast into the astral body of the vulnerable soul. If the soul identifies with the urge, and acts on it, the soul is then hooked, and becomes a slave to that demon, who can pull and tug the chain at will, from that point forward. At this point there is is very little possibility of resistance to this pulling and tugging, because through the free will choice to act out the urge, the victim has allowed the demon to get control of the central nervous system, through the feeling world. This is a state of slavery. And God did not create this state of slavery.

Any soul can become vulnerable to this process of enslavement in one of two ways. First, by neglecting the necessary devotional practices that are required to build up a forcefield of light in the aura, which would provide a shield against this kind of manipulation. Second, by neglecting the concomitant discipline of relinquishing allegiances to error, which are chinks in the armor, which provide pathways through any pre-established shield of light.

God our Father and Mother, they have the power to set their precious children free, but the child must ask for help, and sincerely so. However, the imprisoned soul faces a dilemma in this regard, because the demon, in injecting the homoerotic urge, also injects the poison of its own disdain and contempt towards God into the feeling world, and in the same way that the victim has identified with the homoerotic urge, the victim identifies with this feeling of contempt and disdain towards God, and thus, cannot FEEL inspired to reach out the hand of the heart for help.
This is a great dilemma.

A soul with a preestablished devotional pattern is easier to save, because that soul already has a habit pattern of asking God for help. Though if they go too long with asking God for help, the barrier of disdain will build up, and offer the same dilemma to that soul as well.

For people who confuse Communism and Fascism, remember that Communism is invariably an atheist movement based on the idea that human nature (and animals) can be molded into any form, so it does not demand racial purity.

Fascism is explicitly a "spiritual" movement that typically embraces several forms of religion during its development. It's all about "natural law," "purity," and "blood."

If devout Christians go towards the extremes, it will invariably be towards Fascism led by a muscular butt kicking Aaryan Jesus.

Yes we should all "Pray"... Pray that evangelicals don't impose their mores (anti-abortion, anti-gay, 100% for Israel) upon the Nation. Re: the Israel statement, evangelicals actually believe that everyone (including Jews and children) who don't accept Jesus as their personal Savior are going to be in eternal fire, and that we must support Israel because Muslims are part of the anti-Christ crowd, even though when the rapture and Jesus' coming will result in Jews also going to "you know where".
So---watch out for support of a War on Iran (but not North Korea)..
Sigh - - - another problem with so-many Christians is their ignorance of reproductive physiology and genetics. A fertilized egg or embryo with no brain, heart, liver, etc IS NOT A BABY! Gay orientation is a matter of failure in the hormonal system at about the time of birth together with genenotype...IT IS NOT A CHOICE AND THERE SHOULD BE NO FUTILE, UNCALLED FOR, DAMAGING "CURATIVE" ATTEMPTS!
FINALLY!!! IF God made evangelicals - - - the SAME God made Gays!
Please note the "IF"!

Mr. Mohler, I think much of what you said is very true and I believe sobering to many. I wish I convinced that the message was not only about ideas and not race. As a Christian, I was so disheartened to see and hear the venom, misinformation and just plain lies coming from a party that many (if not most) of my friends and fellow Christians support and claim membership. It seems that it was okay that they did not demonstrate Christian values and Godly character as long as the candidate professed to be pro-life and anti gay marriage. Although I believe abortion and homosexuality is a sin (as God has clearly told us in the Bible), I believe that in God's view all sin reprehensible and I have not seen any real effort made to change the abortion laws, just a lot of rhetoric and postering.

I find it curious that most (if not all) all white hate groups profess themselves to be Christians and seem to gravitate to the ideology of the conservative right. If we were to turn back the clock to the post Lincoln and pre civil rights era, you would find that these same conservative republicans would have been democrats (non whites excluded) bible toting God and God fearing. I suggest that this vote is less about ideology and more whose ideas. If these voters would check the facts with the CBO (as I did) on everything from The bailout, Stimulus, Bush tax breaks, rate of unemployment, the two wars, and the impact of the Healthcare reform, they would find that The President’s decisions have been sound and have not been the reason that the economy is in the shape it is in.

If you looked at the unemployment and job loss statistics starting in January 2008 to today, you would see that the biggest loss took place before any of President Obama’s policies went into affect (December 2008 and January 2009). The rate of job loss has steadily decreased and is well below the pace it had been. You can't stop a speeding locomotive going downhill on a dime. You need to slow it down before you can stop it and get it going in the opposite direction.

Its a shame that former President Bush is not recognized for the courageous thing he did by going against his party to save the country from plummeting into what would have been the worst economical disaster and depression that this country has ever faced. Worst yet is that, the people who voted against the bailout are able to marshal support from the very voters that benefitted. If President Bush had not acted, these same individuals would be enduring a far more severe depression than that was experienced in the years following the the 1929 stock market crash. Remember, if it was left to the Republicans (I supported Bush in 2004), unemployment would not have been extended. Where would these people be then? Side thought, if the house could not demonstrate a way to pay for the tax breaks when we had a surplus, how can we even contemplate keeping them today.

I do not understand why anyone who identifies himself as a conservative Christian would be opposed to a health funding program that protects everyone or any of the rest of a decent social safety net. I was under the impression that they were followers of Jesus, who is said to have told his followers:

Matt. 25:34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?

39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

The problem is that the conversative movement has lost its intellectual core. No more Bill Buckleys.Its intellectual core has been replaced by Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin and Glen Beck, all promoters for profit of an idealogy that lacks an intellectual curiosity and unfortunately many Christian fundamentalist cannot see or don't want see the immorality in that.

chris_r, I agree with much of th ethrust of your post. However, I strongly exception to your statement that Bill Buckley was man of any intellectual & moral heft. He was nothing but a racist bigot. Have you read his diatribes about African Americans, those disgusting articles about the more civilized white southerners' privilege to enact Jim Crow. That man was a despicable excuse for a human being.

As if that was not sufficient, this puerile pond scum one of the greater proponent of "family values" bequeaths nothing for his only disabled grand-child. To rub salt in the wound, by the fistfuls, he further considers his own grand child as pre-deceased himself. This paragon of conservative values could not bring himself to admonish the son for the dalliances his son had practiced, instead he considers his grand son to have pre-deceased. This is the same pond scum who would sit in judgment against pre and extra marital sex and out of wedlock children. For a person with such moral pretensions, the most honorable thing to have done was to have castrated his no good child and while at it himself too as penance for producing such seed.

I attend what some would say is a fundamentalist "bible thumpin" baptist church. For the true "intellectual" there is always going to be a level of frustration with the Church because you simply cannot intellectually argue the existence of God. However on the opposite side is my frustration with fundamentalist whom seem to have a disdain for intellectual thought.

The problem is that the conversative movement has lost its intellectual core. No more Bill Buckleys.Its intellectual core has been replaced by Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin and Glen Beck, all promoters for profit of an idealogy that lacks an intellectual curiosity and unfortunately many Christian fundamentalist cannot see or don't want see the immorality in that.

joe_allen_doty,

What people, especially those who keep an eagle eye on self-professing Christians, just waiting for them to screw up, tend to forget is just because someone is or says that they are a Christian, they are still infallible, imperfect human beings. Christians are supposed to rely on their Savior to keep them from falling to temptations, like adultery, but because they are imperfect, they don't always do what their consciences dictate.

If Christians became perfect, instead of just saved, then they would make perfect government leaders...because they would always make the perfect decisions, not only in the personal lives, but in their political ones.

The religious right is a great threat to America and the values we have always stood for. I grew up in a small Southern town attending a Southern Baptist Church. It was not the church it is today; it has been taken over by the right and I am one of several people who left when we saw it focus on non-Christian values. Historically, we need to fear when fear when fear becomes the driving force. But I do believe the Tea Party will self-destruct; thier most extreme candidates did not fare well with rare exceptions.

R. Albert Mohler, Jr.'s "Religious Right" is always wrong.

Oklahoma's governor-elect, Mary Fallin, is a member of the conservative religious right and belongs to one of those types of churches.

But, her husband divorced her after he found out that she committed adultery. She got remarried after being divorced. Jesus didn't approve of remarriage after divorce and he called doing that adultery.

"Elite" can be a term of either respect or repudiation.

Subprime mortgages were a perfect example of an issue on which most Americans are tired of elites. The Democratic elite saw a way that their corest constituency, poor minorities, could buy homes, claiming that old traditional thinking was what was keeping them from getting mortgages. The Republican party saw a way to help one of their core constituencies, the financial sector, create profitable products.

Middle Americans never thought there was anything wrong with 6% fixed rate mortgages, and anyone who can't get one should really be straightening out their financial affairs before embarking on homeownership.

This kind of issue is why BOTH parties have high negatives, and every election will be won by the "out" party until they start paying more attention to middle Americans.

I must say that both blogs (Chaotician101 and Masonxhamilton) were outstanding. As a student of history, I remember how Germany in the late 1920s and all during the 1930s ventured off course and we all know the end reuslts. America cannot and should not be defined only by the so called religious right...they only want self serving platitudes postulated for their own selfish value systems and belief structures. Anyone differing from their rant is "unamerican." To me, they are un-American to the fullest degree.

Frankly, I lay most of the disintegration of America and its fundamental principals to the so called Religious Right. These people demonstrate over and over again the basic human condition of indoctrination of the young creates a lifelong worldview that can not be changed with information, reasoning, or facts! The ignorance of the Christian Right on fundamental truths, the distortion of reality to fit dogmatic assertions of essentially priestly racketeers, the acceptance of corporate co-option of "religious" beliefs for personal secular gain, the outrageous and egregious bigotry, intolerance, racism, homophobia, sexism, and xenophobia of these bible thumping christians is directly leading to corporate fascism and the destruction of fundamental rights granted the peoples of this once proud Republic. May these people wallow in the filth they create!

"His association with the values of the intellectual elites and his commitment to an expanding role of government distanced him from the electorate." Apparently you are saying that intelligent people can't come to the same conclusion as conservatives regarding the best path forward for the country.

Intellectual elites? Am I to understand that the conservative view point is that associating with those who have demonstrated higher intelligence is a bad thing for leaders to do? This sounds more like the 2000 and 2004 when conservatives wanted a candidate "they could have a beer with." Have you considered re-examining that strategy, unless the results of that non-elitism strategy aren't apparent enough for you now as the country tries to recover from it.

Many of the nations of the world made their greatest mistakes when following raw and uninformed populism when people were hurt and scared. Europe in the early 1900s can provide great examples - 1st with Russia's then Italy and Germany. All places where an economically troubled majority populace sought extreme conservative and authoritarian solutions and BTW where the Church underwrote the popular decision in two out of of the three examples. Perhaps you should pray that we don't repeat these same conservative mistakes again.