LG, I'm sorry to hear about your mom as well and think the help you give these folks in tough times is a noble thing. Although, how do you go about it? I would think that if I spoke to relatives that know my take on religion and God, they would not appreciate it if I started "speaking their language" in their time of need. How do you go about it without sounding disingenuous?
Templelady,
Love is the manifestation of a concept
unconditional acceptance
or Love is the short definition of unconditional acceptance
I disagree. I can love someone without ever letting them know and without ever acting on that love. When I act on that love or manifest that love, the act is not love- I communicate that love. Love is the motivation, the concept, behind the hug, the comforting words, the kindness, the gentleness, the care, etc.
And is it really just unconditional acceptance? Acceptance of what? Into what? Unless you are a universalist, I would say that according to the Bible God's love is not at all unconditional acceptance.
I would say that according to the Bible God's love is not at all unconditional acceptance
Unconditional acceptance DOES NOT equal Unconditional Approval
Unconditional love means that no matter what you do you are always loved-- It does not mean that if you behave badly your actions become acceptable. God always loves us but he doesn't always approve of our behaviors
Unconditional acceptance DOES NOT equal Unconditional Approval
Unconditional love means that no matter what you do you are always loved-- It does not mean that if you behave badly your actions become acceptable. God always loves us but he doesn't always approve of our behaviors
That seems contradictory.
Love is the manifestation of a concept
unconditional acceptance
Perhaps you could give some examples of the manifestation of unconditional acceptance by the God of the Bible to those whose lives he didn't approve of.
I don't know why most agnostics and atheists think its so important to be so vocal and belittle those of faith. Like, THAT really helps "the cause".
Sudo,
I have wondered about that as well. I would think that a typical non-theist would just consider references to any sort of deity as being silly and unworthy of comment. Of course there are the Pat Robertsons and Jimmy Swaggerts of the world who just beg to be harrassed, but those are a completely different case. However, from my experience, the vast majority of non-theists I've run into are more live-and-let-live unless directly engaged. I remember this colleague of mine who was an agnostic: the only way I knew this was that when ever somebody said, "Thank God...", he would chime in and say, "Yes, Thank Good." I view that type of attitude as being more typical. (He passed away last summer from cancer...and, although both he and his wife were agnostics, they had a very nice military funeral presided by a Protestant chaplain...something I considered to be a class move, even in death)
I personally believe those who are driven to constantly vocalize their beliefs can be categorized in one of three ways:
1) The first type is the equal-opportunity basher. They truly believe that any sort of religion or belief in a deity is dangerous and, for the survival of humanity, they must do their parts in destroying all reference to religion. For the most part, these folks are equal-opportunity bashers. It matters not whether the bashee is a Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Jew, or Pagan, they'll bash whenever the opportunity arises.
2) The second type rejects all expressions of God, but concentrates on one religion in particular. In this country, we normally see this expressed as anti-Christian thought. Despite their rejection of religion, in general, they will fully support the expression of non-target religions, leaving all their venom for the one God (or set of gods) they have selected for eradication. While the first group considers religion, in general, to be dangerous, the second considers the one religion to be far and above more dangerous than any other. From my experience, the majority (but not all) of people have some personal reason for holding these views (for example, a relative fell subject to a faith healer and, after wasting all of her money on "seed-love gifts", died anyway) and wish to destroy the veneration to the (non-existent) god who they blame for the problem.
3) The third type, in my opinion, actually believes in a deity, but does not wish to do so. Therefore, they seek to repeatedly convince themselves through this technique.
(And the fourth type, which are non-theists as opposed to anti-theists, and have already been discussed)
Of course, nobody can be pigeonholed into any one category (unless they are simply a caricature) and will display a combination of the above categories.
You know the funniest thing to me? To hear a self-avowed atheist say "G*d dam*" or some other such epithet.
But to me, anti-theists are the funniest people. Because unlike non-theists, they battle against something whose existence they deny.
BTW, once again, for the record, I don't care if a person is a theist or not. Their business. I'd rather be more 'live and let live,' if I had my preference.
Perhaps you could give some examples of the manifestation of unconditional acceptance by the God of the Bible to those whose lives he didn't approve of.
I think the fairer question would be for you to give me and example in the Bible where God said to one of his children "I hate You"(you as the individual not the behavior)" "You're not my Child" (I am not your creator)
I t doesn't happen -but is sure does here on the earthly plain
I think the fairer question would be for you to give me and example in the Bible where God said to one of his children "I hate You"(you as the individual not the behavior)" "You're not my Child" (I am not your creator)
i think this really points at it all from a whole nuther very important angle
its an oldie but a goody...as we used to say
worth a thread (or 10) all its own
i mean, it can be a leap to assume for a moment there is no God
but another to assume for a moment that God is NOT ethnocentric and never has been
...especially as it pertains to OUR being ethnocentric in our approach to the lineages of the world's spiritual traditions
...and in how we decide who is IN, and who is OUT, of the various classifications of whatever model of goodness and evilness we rely on
But to me, anti-theists are the funniest people. Because unlike non-theists, they battle against something whose existence they deny.
No, they battle against the belief in something whose existance they deny, and it's influence on society.
(I despise the quote function on this board)
I refer you to my category #1 of anti-theist:
1) The first type is the equal-opportunity basher. They truly believe that
any sort of religion or belief in a deity is dangerous
and, for the survival of humanity, they must do their parts in destroying all reference to religion. For the most part, these folks are equal-opportunity bashers. It matters not whether the bashee is a Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Jew, or Pagan, they'll bash whenever the opportunity arises.
(Bolding added)
BTW, Please pass my regards onto Reikilady...haven't seen her post for a while. Please let her know that at least this one theist had high regard for her consistent kindness shown on this board.
Sudo and Lindy, I appreciate your kind words but I really don't see my mother's condition as anything to be sorry about. She is well into her eighties, has lived longer than any other of my ancestors or close relatives, and is not suffering from any horribly painful diseases or mental debilitation such as comes from Alzheimer's, although she does suffer from some chronic pain that is alleviated by medication and her mental faculties are somewhat impaired. She is simply old and her body and its systems are giving out on her. As far as I can tell, she will die in peace, whenever that might happen.
Lindy, I don't sound disingenuous because I've never spoken out against the religious beliefs of any person I've known. Most people I know assume that I am a Christian. Even those who know that I am not religious and not affiliated with any church usually assume that I am a Christian, but one for whom faith is a private matter. I see no reason to get "in their faces" and challenge their assumptions, or usually even to mention my disbelief in notions they accept by faith. Also, when I "speak their language," I throw in qualifiers that allow me to remain honest but still be supportive of their faith. For example, with a fundamentalist Bible believer, I might quote and reason from the Bible, but preface whatever I say with, "The Bible says..." That way, I can speak "their language," without making my belief or disbelief in what the Bible says an issue. I'm being honest, because the Bible really does say whatever it is that I'm telling them. Whether or not I believe the Bible to be true is irrelevant. They do, and that is all that matters.
CM, I'm aware that not everyone views Christianity as I do. You are obviously offended by my view that it is based on fables. I don't mean to offend. I'm simply expressing my thoughts, in as non-offensive way as I can. I'll grant the possibility that your "real experience" are genuine. Assuming that they are, and that your beliefs are true, for some reason, thirty-odd years of trying to know God yielded no similar experiences for me. Perhaps I missed some clues, but it certainly wasn't because I didn't "want to look." I looked hard. I prayed fervently. I professed belief even when I doubted. I tried “fake it till you make it.”My faking it was so good that it fooled everyone but me, in every denomination with which I was involved, from Catholic, through TWI, Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist (both Southern and independent) and a couple of "non-denominational" churches.. All thought I “had it together,” was “tapped in,” had a wonderful relationship with “the Lord.,” etc. Only I knew that it was all an act. I didn’t want it to be an act. I wanted it to be real. I spent many sleepless nights in prayer (and sometimes in tears) trying to commune with God. So disagree with me all you want, but don’t make the mistake of presuming that I came to my current conclusions because I “don’t want to look.”
I looked, I studied, I prayed, I begged, I cried, long and hard. I did everything I could think of, for many years, to seek and to know God, by whom I mean the God of the Bible. If he exists, he did not deem it appropriate to make himself known to me through all those years. I've knocked, but the door wasn't opened to me. If there is a God, at this point, he'll have to break open the door on his own, because I'm through trying to open it from my side.
Well, you at least believe in that which you despise
I refer you to my category #1 of anti-theist:
<blockquote>1) The first type is the equal-opportunity basher. They truly believe that any sort of religion or belief in a deity is dangerous and, for the survival of humanity, they must do their parts in destroying all reference to religion. For the most part, these folks are equal-opportunity bashers. It matters not whether the bashee is a Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Jew, or Pagan, they'll bash whenever the opportunity arises.</blockquote>
(Bolding added)
I think you just made my point :blink:
BTW, Please pass my regards onto Reikilady...haven't seen her post for a while. Please let her know that at least this one theist had high regard for her consistent kindness shown on this board.
Thank you Mark, I will
...and by the way, neither one of us claim to be atheists
"Perhaps you could give some examples of the manifestation of unconditional acceptance by the God of the Bible to those whose lives he didn't approve of."
I think the fairer question would be for you to give me and example in the Bible where God said to one of his children "I hate You"(you as the individual not the behavior)" "You're not my Child" (I am not your creator)
It doesn't happen -but is sure does here on the earthly plain
Come now, you're asking an agnostic to give you some Bible verses.
You also added some nice caveats, I might add.
Ok, off the top of my head....in the Bible, it wasn't long after creation before there was a distinction between the "Sons of God" and those other people "sons of men" or "evil doers" or what ever. They were certainly not "my OTHER children....the ones that never listen to me." Then as Sir G alluded, there was only the children of Isreal, they were the only "sons of God." Everyone else were considered the expendable crew members (see Noah, famines, other floods, and natural disasters or "acts of God" in the OT).
Since you wanted a verse, off the top of my head this is what a rusty Bible thumper can come up with:(bold added by yours truly, obviously)
2 Cor. 6
14Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
15And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
16And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
17Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.
18And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
Sounds pretty conditional to me and in the NT. That is just off the top of my rusty bucket of a head. It isn't somthing I would consider saying to my "good" children about my "bad" children. Of course, I'm just an imperfect human father.
Well, you at least believe in that which you despise
I think you just made my point :blink:
Wasn't trying to make your point, but was pointing out that I already mentioned the point you stated.
Thank you Mark, I will
...and by the way, neither one of us claim to be atheists
Didn't say you were. Not sure of Reikilady's belief systems, but hadn't you stated that your beliefs were closer to neo-Paganism? Not that it matters, but that's at least what I remember.
I didn't take it as offensive. Just pointing out that what one considers fables - scriptures - is actually what these people were experiencing, seeing and realizing more and more. And yes i've had experiences, but they were and are mine and shared with some personally and on forums that know what i'm talking about.
Your statement
"Only I knew that it was all an act. I didn’t want it to be an act. I wanted it to be real."
Is one of the bravest steps there is to take. Seeing that you don't know takes wisdom.
The words you need to hear will come from a person and spark that Christ that is there as a seed within.
You have seen words that you do not understand from people here.
A consideration of the impossible....
That it just might be....
Some things can only light up the soul from the spirit within..
Cuz the Garden is closer then you think,
and the trees are still there.
When something appears, that doesn't mean it hasn't always been there anyway.
Just not seen, not turning to look. To the fire...the flaming sword...the light
A candle...a wind...a breath
And from there it will show you, if you can handle it.
To dethrone the carnal man and let it die.
New wine will burst the old wine skins.
To move aside and LET (how many times is that word used) the Lord Come.
This God is alive and well.
The words are from the heart here and now.
Not ancient letters, although they will come to mind.
The deadness is not that is not there but not made alive yet.
Dead in trespassess and sins has a bit of a different twist then what we were taught.
In the mind and heart it is and will not cease to exist.
Still haven't showed me where GOD says "I don;t Love You" "I am not your creator"
The consequences in the Old Testament were not some out of the blue surprise-- Humankind knew what they were supposed to be doing and chose not to-- Experiencing the consequences of bad behavior does not indicate love has been withdrawn. God experiences great pain when his children stray but being just he cannot spare them the consequences of their behavior.
Templelady, you're the one who defined love as unconditional acceptance. Lindy gave some examples of conditional acceptance. It seems to me that if the biblical God loves everyone but doesn't unconditionally accept everyone, then your definition is not accurate.
It seems to me that if the biblical God loves everyone but doesn't unconditionally accept everyone
But God does unconditionally accept everyone--All can repent and once they have repented they are again partakers of the blessings of God since his Love has never been withdrawn. Approval and love are not the same thing with God but they too often are with man
But God does unconditionally accept everyone--All can repent and once they have repented they are again partakers of the blessings of God since his Love has never been withdrawn. Approval and love are not the same thing with God but they too often are with man
as i understand what i think you are getting at, i think you are right on the money, TL
without a doubt, there exists a classic spectrum of felt/known experiences of god, God, and GOD
although, at any given moment, how we interpret and reinterpret this or that experience can and does often vary dramatically
what i think we most often lack are more neutral and useful languages/ways/styles of sharing and comparing maps of our spiritual (and non-spiritual experiences)
God does unconditionally accept everyone--All can repent... and once they have repented...
Is that not a condition?
It is a condition for not facing the consequences of Sin
But it IS NOT a condition for being loved by God.
You see we are having trouble even discussing this because in human terms
consequences of sin = withholding/withdrawal of love MOST OF THE TIME
It is hard for us to grasp the concept that it doesn't work that way with GOD because the Withdrawal/withholding of love is one of the consequences on an earthly plane that we fear the most as well as being one of our most powerful weapons in controlling the actions of others.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
32
40
51
31
Popular Days
Dec 31
38
Jan 5
23
Jan 4
18
Jan 21
18
Top Posters In This Topic
GarthP2000 32 posts
CM 40 posts
templelady 51 posts
markomalley 31 posts
Popular Days
Dec 31 2005
38 posts
Jan 5 2006
23 posts
Jan 4 2006
18 posts
Jan 21 2006
18 posts
lindyhopper
LG, I'm sorry to hear about your mom as well and think the help you give these folks in tough times is a noble thing. Although, how do you go about it? I would think that if I spoke to relatives that know my take on religion and God, they would not appreciate it if I started "speaking their language" in their time of need. How do you go about it without sounding disingenuous?
Templelady,
I disagree. I can love someone without ever letting them know and without ever acting on that love. When I act on that love or manifest that love, the act is not love- I communicate that love. Love is the motivation, the concept, behind the hug, the comforting words, the kindness, the gentleness, the care, etc.
And is it really just unconditional acceptance? Acceptance of what? Into what? Unless you are a universalist, I would say that according to the Bible God's love is not at all unconditional acceptance.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
Unconditional acceptance DOES NOT equal Unconditional Approval
Unconditional love means that no matter what you do you are always loved-- It does not mean that if you behave badly your actions become acceptable. God always loves us but he doesn't always approve of our behaviors
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
That seems contradictory.
Perhaps you could give some examples of the manifestation of unconditional acceptance by the God of the Bible to those whose lives he didn't approve of.
Edited by lindyhopperLink to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Sudo,
I have wondered about that as well. I would think that a typical non-theist would just consider references to any sort of deity as being silly and unworthy of comment. Of course there are the Pat Robertsons and Jimmy Swaggerts of the world who just beg to be harrassed, but those are a completely different case. However, from my experience, the vast majority of non-theists I've run into are more live-and-let-live unless directly engaged. I remember this colleague of mine who was an agnostic: the only way I knew this was that when ever somebody said, "Thank God...", he would chime in and say, "Yes, Thank Good." I view that type of attitude as being more typical. (He passed away last summer from cancer...and, although both he and his wife were agnostics, they had a very nice military funeral presided by a Protestant chaplain...something I considered to be a class move, even in death)
I personally believe those who are driven to constantly vocalize their beliefs can be categorized in one of three ways:
1) The first type is the equal-opportunity basher. They truly believe that any sort of religion or belief in a deity is dangerous and, for the survival of humanity, they must do their parts in destroying all reference to religion. For the most part, these folks are equal-opportunity bashers. It matters not whether the bashee is a Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Jew, or Pagan, they'll bash whenever the opportunity arises.
2) The second type rejects all expressions of God, but concentrates on one religion in particular. In this country, we normally see this expressed as anti-Christian thought. Despite their rejection of religion, in general, they will fully support the expression of non-target religions, leaving all their venom for the one God (or set of gods) they have selected for eradication. While the first group considers religion, in general, to be dangerous, the second considers the one religion to be far and above more dangerous than any other. From my experience, the majority (but not all) of people have some personal reason for holding these views (for example, a relative fell subject to a faith healer and, after wasting all of her money on "seed-love gifts", died anyway) and wish to destroy the veneration to the (non-existent) god who they blame for the problem.
3) The third type, in my opinion, actually believes in a deity, but does not wish to do so. Therefore, they seek to repeatedly convince themselves through this technique.
(And the fourth type, which are non-theists as opposed to anti-theists, and have already been discussed)
Of course, nobody can be pigeonholed into any one category (unless they are simply a caricature) and will display a combination of the above categories.
You know the funniest thing to me? To hear a self-avowed atheist say "G*d dam*" or some other such epithet.
But to me, anti-theists are the funniest people. Because unlike non-theists, they battle against something whose existence they deny.
BTW, once again, for the record, I don't care if a person is a theist or not. Their business. I'd rather be more 'live and let live,' if I had my preference.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
not everyone sees it that way
rather then ideas there is real experience
and no i will not tell you mine
i'm not that foolish to put that on these boards
everyone has a god - like it or not
most people are their own gods
fine with me, knock yourselves out
worship what you think you know
rely on your own minds
consider not the unseen
consider not what there is much that has not been considered
assume for the rest of your life there is no god
fables....lol....and when these fables become real
more real then you expect or ever imagined
mercy will be there in hell and heaven
known as we are known doesn't stop
it continues to expand
faith in what has been seen
yeah really seen
call me a liar, don't care
i already have been...lol..
won't even try to prove it
there is only one that can
missing the points of the parables is a given for many
seeing thru a carnal eye, not considering it's alternative realities
that hidden right there in front of your face
been there all along, just hasn't been seen
cuz it has not been shown to you
and will be shown to you by only one
clues are endless yet missed
many just don't want to look
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
I think the fairer question would be for you to give me and example in the Bible where God said to one of his children "I hate You"(you as the individual not the behavior)" "You're not my Child" (I am not your creator)
I t doesn't happen -but is sure does here on the earthly plain
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
i think this really points at it all from a whole nuther very important angle
its an oldie but a goody...as we used to say
worth a thread (or 10) all its own
i mean, it can be a leap to assume for a moment there is no God
but another to assume for a moment that God is NOT ethnocentric and never has been
...especially as it pertains to OUR being ethnocentric in our approach to the lineages of the world's spiritual traditions
...and in how we decide who is IN, and who is OUT, of the various classifications of whatever model of goodness and evilness we rely on
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
no double talk to it
it's actually a good thing
once it's understood
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
(I despise the quote function on this board)
I refer you to my category #1 of anti-theist:
(Bolding added)
BTW, Please pass my regards onto Reikilady...haven't seen her post for a while. Please let her know that at least this one theist had high regard for her consistent kindness shown on this board.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Sudo and Lindy, I appreciate your kind words but I really don't see my mother's condition as anything to be sorry about. She is well into her eighties, has lived longer than any other of my ancestors or close relatives, and is not suffering from any horribly painful diseases or mental debilitation such as comes from Alzheimer's, although she does suffer from some chronic pain that is alleviated by medication and her mental faculties are somewhat impaired. She is simply old and her body and its systems are giving out on her. As far as I can tell, she will die in peace, whenever that might happen.
Lindy, I don't sound disingenuous because I've never spoken out against the religious beliefs of any person I've known. Most people I know assume that I am a Christian. Even those who know that I am not religious and not affiliated with any church usually assume that I am a Christian, but one for whom faith is a private matter. I see no reason to get "in their faces" and challenge their assumptions, or usually even to mention my disbelief in notions they accept by faith. Also, when I "speak their language," I throw in qualifiers that allow me to remain honest but still be supportive of their faith. For example, with a fundamentalist Bible believer, I might quote and reason from the Bible, but preface whatever I say with, "The Bible says..." That way, I can speak "their language," without making my belief or disbelief in what the Bible says an issue. I'm being honest, because the Bible really does say whatever it is that I'm telling them. Whether or not I believe the Bible to be true is irrelevant. They do, and that is all that matters.
CM, I'm aware that not everyone views Christianity as I do. You are obviously offended by my view that it is based on fables. I don't mean to offend. I'm simply expressing my thoughts, in as non-offensive way as I can. I'll grant the possibility that your "real experience" are genuine. Assuming that they are, and that your beliefs are true, for some reason, thirty-odd years of trying to know God yielded no similar experiences for me. Perhaps I missed some clues, but it certainly wasn't because I didn't "want to look." I looked hard. I prayed fervently. I professed belief even when I doubted. I tried “fake it till you make it.”My faking it was so good that it fooled everyone but me, in every denomination with which I was involved, from Catholic, through TWI, Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist (both Southern and independent) and a couple of "non-denominational" churches.. All thought I “had it together,” was “tapped in,” had a wonderful relationship with “the Lord.,” etc. Only I knew that it was all an act. I didn’t want it to be an act. I wanted it to be real. I spent many sleepless nights in prayer (and sometimes in tears) trying to commune with God. So disagree with me all you want, but don’t make the mistake of presuming that I came to my current conclusions because I “don’t want to look.”
I looked, I studied, I prayed, I begged, I cried, long and hard. I did everything I could think of, for many years, to seek and to know God, by whom I mean the God of the Bible. If he exists, he did not deem it appropriate to make himself known to me through all those years. I've knocked, but the door wasn't opened to me. If there is a God, at this point, he'll have to break open the door on his own, because I'm through trying to open it from my side.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
...and by the way, neither one of us claim to be atheists
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
Come now, you're asking an agnostic to give you some Bible verses.
You also added some nice caveats, I might add.
Ok, off the top of my head....in the Bible, it wasn't long after creation before there was a distinction between the "Sons of God" and those other people "sons of men" or "evil doers" or what ever. They were certainly not "my OTHER children....the ones that never listen to me." Then as Sir G alluded, there was only the children of Isreal, they were the only "sons of God." Everyone else were considered the expendable crew members (see Noah, famines, other floods, and natural disasters or "acts of God" in the OT).
Since you wanted a verse, off the top of my head this is what a rusty Bible thumper can come up with:(bold added by yours truly, obviously)
2 Cor. 6
14Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
15And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
16And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
17Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.
18And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
Sounds pretty conditional to me and in the NT. That is just off the top of my rusty bucket of a head. It isn't somthing I would consider saying to my "good" children about my "bad" children. Of course, I'm just an imperfect human father.
Edited by lindyhopperLink to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Wasn't trying to make your point, but was pointing out that I already mentioned the point you stated.
Didn't say you were. Not sure of Reikilady's belief systems, but hadn't you stated that your beliefs were closer to neo-Paganism? Not that it matters, but that's at least what I remember.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
LG
I didn't take it as offensive. Just pointing out that what one considers fables - scriptures - is actually what these people were experiencing, seeing and realizing more and more. And yes i've had experiences, but they were and are mine and shared with some personally and on forums that know what i'm talking about.
Your statement
"Only I knew that it was all an act. I didn’t want it to be an act. I wanted it to be real."
Is one of the bravest steps there is to take. Seeing that you don't know takes wisdom.
The words you need to hear will come from a person and spark that Christ that is there as a seed within.
You have seen words that you do not understand from people here.
A consideration of the impossible....
That it just might be....
Some things can only light up the soul from the spirit within..
Cuz the Garden is closer then you think,
and the trees are still there.
When something appears, that doesn't mean it hasn't always been there anyway.
Just not seen, not turning to look. To the fire...the flaming sword...the light
A candle...a wind...a breath
And from there it will show you, if you can handle it.
To dethrone the carnal man and let it die.
New wine will burst the old wine skins.
To move aside and LET (how many times is that word used) the Lord Come.
This God is alive and well.
The words are from the heart here and now.
Not ancient letters, although they will come to mind.
The deadness is not that is not there but not made alive yet.
Dead in trespassess and sins has a bit of a different twist then what we were taught.
In the mind and heart it is and will not cease to exist.
Edited by CMLink to comment
Share on other sites
CM
lindyhopper...
there are sons and then
there are Sons
God fathered Adam
we are all of Adam
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
Lindyhopper
You are giving consequences of bad behavior
Still haven't showed me where GOD says "I don;t Love You" "I am not your creator"
The consequences in the Old Testament were not some out of the blue surprise-- Humankind knew what they were supposed to be doing and chose not to-- Experiencing the consequences of bad behavior does not indicate love has been withdrawn. God experiences great pain when his children stray but being just he cannot spare them the consequences of their behavior.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Templelady, you're the one who defined love as unconditional acceptance. Lindy gave some examples of conditional acceptance. It seems to me that if the biblical God loves everyone but doesn't unconditionally accept everyone, then your definition is not accurate.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
But God does unconditionally accept everyone--All can repent and once they have repented they are again partakers of the blessings of God since his Love has never been withdrawn. Approval and love are not the same thing with God but they too often are with man
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
as i understand what i think you are getting at, i think you are right on the money, TL
without a doubt, there exists a classic spectrum of felt/known experiences of god, God, and GOD
although, at any given moment, how we interpret and reinterpret this or that experience can and does often vary dramatically
what i think we most often lack are more neutral and useful languages/ways/styles of sharing and comparing maps of our spiritual (and non-spiritual experiences)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Is that not a condition?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
repent means change
all will change
all are accepted
some works are not
and for good reason
doesn't change the love
changes your view
doesn't change the reality of god
or what he is
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
It is a condition for not facing the consequences of Sin
But it IS NOT a condition for being loved by God.
You see we are having trouble even discussing this because in human terms
consequences of sin = withholding/withdrawal of love MOST OF THE TIME
It is hard for us to grasp the concept that it doesn't work that way with GOD because the Withdrawal/withholding of love is one of the consequences on an earthly plane that we fear the most as well as being one of our most powerful weapons in controlling the actions of others.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.