GOD is my FATHER and you will not BEGUILE ME....

GOD is my FATHER and you will not BEGUILE ME....

Tim
Tim

November 19th, 2010, 10:11 am #1

Talk to me and beguile me.
That is your hope to beguile me and others.

Your only hope is to beguile my mind.

Do you think you can?

Tim
Quote
Share

JVH
Joined: July 20th, 2009, 1:33 pm

November 19th, 2010, 11:11 am #2


According to the bible Noah was instructed to build an ark meant to preserve life because a devastating, world-wide flood wiping out all life was about to occur (the illogic alone).
<p align="center"><strong>Warning!!</strong> Reading and trying to comprehend content of posts by others is to be avoided at all costs.
No really. It's extremely dangerous, it might be contagious. You see, information might, heaven forbid,
contain weird messages, like, you know, knowledge, that sort of thing; cause allergic reactions like,
well, questioning stuff; brainwash you even, into a (shudder) rational thinking individual. Sneaky uh?

<p align="center">--oOo--

"Ye woodsten arke was 300 cubits by 50 cubits by 30 cubits in size" (Gen. 6:15).
A cubit is approximately 18 inches which is 1.5 ft. although it is sometimes suggested Noah is supposed to have used the 22 inches, Egyptian cubit which would render ye woodsten arke even bigger but isn't supported by scripture and inflates problems we'll get to in a moment.

So, let's go with the generally accepted 18 inches. Ye woodsten arke then, as supported by scripture, would have been 450 ft long, 75 wide, and 45 tall and the total cubic volume would have been 1,518,750 cubic ft.

When we do a bit of conversion in metres, it's 137.16 by 22.86 by 13.716. For ease of calculation, let's call it 140 x 23 x 14. This give us 45.080e+3 cubic metres.

One cubic metre of pure water equals one metric tonne. Salt water is a bit more dense. Let's add another thousand tonnes. Ye woodsten arke then, would displace 46,000 tonnes, perhaps 46,500 tonnes, tops.

So far for the metres. Back to feet.

Those who know something about ship-building will spot a certain 'minor' problem with the above figures and apparently no creationist has ever noticed it. In part, perhaps, if it's corrected, things get worse, for ye woodsten arke that is.


HMS Victoria, the last full-rigged 1st rate ship of the ERN line to serve as flag of the Channel Fleet was 340 ft long, 250 ft long on the gundeck, with a displacement of about 10,470 tonnes. - http://www.battleships-cruisers.co.uk/hms_victoria.htm

She had a steel frame because the ERN had found that building wooden ships much bigger than 225 ft long was not a good idea. They tended to straddle or hog; that is, they tended to bend. Their bows and sterns would stick up out of the water at an angle (that's straddling) or bend the other way; the bows and sterns were supported by waves but the midships sections would be out of the water or at least not as well supported (that's hogging).

Either way, their keels tended to crack under the strain. Even with steel frames, wooden ships bigger than 250 ft long tend to hog or straddle. The longest wooden ships build were about 300 ft, they required reinforcement with iron straps though and leaked so badly they had to be pumped constantly.

That's why the 18 inches cubit is used here and not the 22 inches, Egyptian cubit because that would render ye woodsten arke about 55 ft tall, 91.5 ft wide and 550 ft long, inflating already insolvable problems.




The Egyptian connection is quite interesting here. About the same time ye floode is said to have happened, it is also said the pyramid of Cheops was being build. If so, we've made a brand new discovery; ye Egyptians, back then, were aquanauts.
Anyway, if we go with the 18 inches cubit, ye woodsten arke then, is the size of about 1 and a half times that of HMS Victoria.



To give you an idea, here's a few pics of HMS Victoria, 340 ft long, including people, for perspective.


<img alt="HMS%20Victoria.jpg" src="http://victorian-england.co.uk/images/H ... ctoria.jpg">

<img alt="800px-Hms-victoria-c1888.jpg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... -c1888.jpg">


Below is a pic of "the ark" (including people for perspective) as build by a Dutch believer based upon the characteristics and measurements as mentioned in the Bible. However, it's about half the size of the ark as recorded in the Bible: 70 metres (230 ft) long, almost 13 metres (43 ft) high, 9.1/2 metres (30 ft) wide, and "the ark" itself is sat on a barge/pontoon because the builder soon realized what the ERN realized before him but creationists still do not.
- http://www.arkvannoach.com/


<img alt="ark_van_noach.jpg" src="http://maasmonding.web-log.nl/photos/un ... _noach.jpg">


So, entirely based upon the characteristics and measurements as recorded in ye bible, we can see where this is going.

Then, when we get to the Noah crew and the live stock ... the amount of animals ... the necessary room to exercise to avoid atrophy which would otherwise cause the animals to die before the journey is over ... the amount of specific nourishment needed for each species, where to store it, how to keep it fresh ... the inevitable excrement and only a crew of 8 to feed the animals and clean up after them ... the heat the animals would produce, and only one small window for ventilation ... the amount of fresh water needed, how to keep that fresh, where and how to store it, and so on and so forth, the list is endless ... all on board of ye woodsten arke, for the duration of about a year (7:6-16 - 8:13-19) ... poses problems so huge, so impossible to solve, in a logical and realistic manner that is, that even the most brilliant creationist would be extremely hard pressed to save the day.

Have you ever tried to work out just how big ye woodsten arke must have been to carry the assorted animals, the nourishment and have space for cages and exercise areas?

After you get to 900,000 tonnes displacement and still haven't accounted for all the good stuff, you'd better stop because that's three times the size of a supertanker or nine times the size of a nuke aircraft carrier. There's simply no way a woodsten boat could ever be that big, let alone function.

Remember, we calculated that the ark could displace a max of 46,000 tonnes or so, if we were being generous, and that is only the mass of the boat without the animals, the food, the fresh water and so on (Archimedes' Principle you know). Looks like we need at least two more arks just to carry the food, the fresh water, plant life and so on. Where's the mention of the Great Barge Fleet in the Bible?

So much for ye woodsten arke. Now for ye floode.

Latent Heat of Vaporisation (Thermodynamics)

1g of steam condenses to 1g of liquid water plus 2261 joules! A cubic meter of water is a million grams and the surface of the Earth is 5.09 x 10^8 km2 or 5.09 x 1014 m2. Thus, if we drop a measely meter of water a day for 40 days, the amount of energy released is 2261 joules/g * 1,000,000 g/m3 * 5.09 * 10^14 m3 per day or 1.15 * 10^24 joules a day or 249,300,000 megatonnes/day!

The pentagon would envy such an arsenal and couldn't stop drooling over it.

Put another way, for every m. of water level increase, we have to release 2.261 billion joules/m2. At a rate of 1 m/day, this comes to 2.261 billion joules/day/m2 or a radiance of 26 kilowatts/m2, roughly 20 times the brightness of the sun!


Result: the atmosphere rapidly turns into incandescent plasma incinerating poor Noah & Co including ye woodsten arke. Nothing survives, the oceans boil and the land is baked into pottery.

Now what?



Those who concocted ye floode/ye arke stories as real life events had no idea about the grander scheme of things and neither do those who advocate the same today.

We could point out dozens of other problems with ye woodsten ark/ye floode, but let's address just a few:

- The waters to submerge the earth must have come from outwith the earth (otherwise the earth would already have been submerged) and had to be disposed of likewise (otherwise the earth would remain submerged). What is the explanation for this set of phenomena? Magic? Surely not?

- How did mankind as we know it today came to pass, again, out of 8 people from the same descent?

- How did the mayfly (a creeping, crawly thing) survive? <img alt="happy.gif" src="http://www.network54.com/images/happy.gif" width="14" height="14">

- Tapeworm, Leprosy, Cancer, Smallpox, Shingles, Herpes, Polio, Chickenpox, Rabies, Ebola, Hanta, Marburg, Sars, H1N1, Monkeypox, HIV/AIDS and soforth are living organisms too. If they were not on the ark, they died too since '<em><strong>everything</strong> that was <strong>not</strong> <strong>on</strong> the ark <strong>perished</strong>'</em>. (7:4 - 7:21-23). They exist. Thus they survived. They were therefore on the ark.

Parasites require a living host to survive. So, which one of the Noah crew carried herpes, which one hookworm, which one cancer and so on? Which ones carried HIV/AIDS, Syphilis and the other "sinful" sexually-transmitted diseases that would not have given Noah & Co passage on a vessel designed by the Judeo-Christian deity for the holiest of humans? And ... which ones carried Ebola, rendering its carrier deceased within days?

- Everything that was not on the ark perished. (7:4 - 7:21-23)
This infers God had to re-create every life form not on the ark (since they did not survive the flood). How come Genesis doesn't seem to mention the re-creation of all that perished? And, if God could have re-created -and did re-create- every life form that did not survive the flood, which he obviously did otherwise they wouldn't exist, doesn't that render rather redundant the whole ark thing anyway?


There's a good reason why ye creation account is quite silent on lots of stuff including microbes, germs; archaea, amino acids, bacteria, viruses, parasites (and their hosts), the mayfly, (the delicate nature of) aquatic life, and so on, without which life wouldn't even exist: those who concocted ye Bible, including Genesis, didn't know about that - and what you do not know, you cannot, and therefore fail to, mention.

Such is the nature of incomprehensibility: those suffering it cannot help but being the experts in displaying it, in effect, granting the courtesy of instant clarification. <img alt="happy.gif" src="http://www.network54.com/images/happy.gif" width="14" height="14">
<p align="left">___________________________
When dealing with abstractions
one should treat them as such
If not, one is mistaken, dishonest
or ...... but let's not go there ...



Always keep in mind that the human brain can only comprehend 3 categories to put information in.

New!! Improved!! Now With T-Formula!!
Quote
Like
Share

striver
striver

November 19th, 2010, 2:36 pm #3

Talk to me and beguile me.
That is your hope to beguile me and others.

Your only hope is to beguile my mind.

Do you think you can?

Tim
There is no wrong place for one's mind to be on its evolutinary path. I say this so you will know my reply contains no condemnation. I have a daughter and three granddaughters who think like you. I did not try to 'save' them knowing that's the function or their Christs within...not Jesus in the sky. So, if you believe nothing else I say, believe that I'm not trying to 'save' you.

My parents, my sister, and grandparents plus countless cousins believe basically what you believe and I love all of them. I too believed it for the first twenty years of my life.

I know I post it a lot, trying to get it to penetrate the fog of worship in which churchanity's collective mind is polarised (it won't alwasy be), but I'll ask again. Why do Churchanity people like yourself adamantly insist the Bible is God's word and should be taken literally, but refuse to do so in certain cases.

What Churchanity doesn't say is that it is understood among them that every word of the Bible (and there's a Bible for every interpretation) should be taken literally except in those places where scripture refutes their accepted interpretation. Can you explain why, in those places in the Bible where God's word and the interpretations of Churchanity disagree that Churchanity changes God's word to agree with their's, and not the reverse? It's as if you believe God's word is incorrect and your's is correct.

Do you (Churchanity) hope that the newborn won't see the original when they become adults? You do realise these people will be come aware of the original, feel they've been suped, and will wax exceedingly vexed. (Dince y'all love ancient stuff, I thought I'd use that).

Tell me, if you can, why Churchanity denies Psalms 82.6 and John 20:34? Is it because Churchanity is so buried in its emotion-devotion-worship stage in evolution therefore so badly needs something to worship, that they cannot bring themselves to agree with He whom they loudly and persistently proclaim is God and Wno inspired the writing of the Bible?

And isn't the changed Bible not the
Word of God but of Churchanity?
Quote
Share

Joined: August 11th, 2005, 6:54 pm

November 19th, 2010, 2:50 pm #4

According to the bible Noah was instructed to build an ark meant to preserve life because a devastating, world-wide flood wiping out all life was about to occur (the illogic alone).
<p align="center"><strong>Warning!!</strong> Reading and trying to comprehend content of posts by others is to be avoided at all costs.
No really. It's extremely dangerous, it might be contagious. You see, information might, heaven forbid,
contain weird messages, like, you know, knowledge, that sort of thing; cause allergic reactions like,
well, questioning stuff; brainwash you even, into a (shudder) rational thinking individual. Sneaky uh?

<p align="center">--oOo--

"Ye woodsten arke was 300 cubits by 50 cubits by 30 cubits in size" (Gen. 6:15).
A cubit is approximately 18 inches which is 1.5 ft. although it is sometimes suggested Noah is supposed to have used the 22 inches, Egyptian cubit which would render ye woodsten arke even bigger but isn't supported by scripture and inflates problems we'll get to in a moment.

So, let's go with the generally accepted 18 inches. Ye woodsten arke then, as supported by scripture, would have been 450 ft long, 75 wide, and 45 tall and the total cubic volume would have been 1,518,750 cubic ft.

When we do a bit of conversion in metres, it's 137.16 by 22.86 by 13.716. For ease of calculation, let's call it 140 x 23 x 14. This give us 45.080e+3 cubic metres.

One cubic metre of pure water equals one metric tonne. Salt water is a bit more dense. Let's add another thousand tonnes. Ye woodsten arke then, would displace 46,000 tonnes, perhaps 46,500 tonnes, tops.

So far for the metres. Back to feet.

Those who know something about ship-building will spot a certain 'minor' problem with the above figures and apparently no creationist has ever noticed it. In part, perhaps, if it's corrected, things get worse, for ye woodsten arke that is.


HMS Victoria, the last full-rigged 1st rate ship of the ERN line to serve as flag of the Channel Fleet was 340 ft long, 250 ft long on the gundeck, with a displacement of about 10,470 tonnes. - http://www.battleships-cruisers.co.uk/hms_victoria.htm

She had a steel frame because the ERN had found that building wooden ships much bigger than 225 ft long was not a good idea. They tended to straddle or hog; that is, they tended to bend. Their bows and sterns would stick up out of the water at an angle (that's straddling) or bend the other way; the bows and sterns were supported by waves but the midships sections would be out of the water or at least not as well supported (that's hogging).

Either way, their keels tended to crack under the strain. Even with steel frames, wooden ships bigger than 250 ft long tend to hog or straddle. The longest wooden ships build were about 300 ft, they required reinforcement with iron straps though and leaked so badly they had to be pumped constantly.

That's why the 18 inches cubit is used here and not the 22 inches, Egyptian cubit because that would render ye woodsten arke about 55 ft tall, 91.5 ft wide and 550 ft long, inflating already insolvable problems.




The Egyptian connection is quite interesting here. About the same time ye floode is said to have happened, it is also said the pyramid of Cheops was being build. If so, we've made a brand new discovery; ye Egyptians, back then, were aquanauts.
Anyway, if we go with the 18 inches cubit, ye woodsten arke then, is the size of about 1 and a half times that of HMS Victoria.



To give you an idea, here's a few pics of HMS Victoria, 340 ft long, including people, for perspective.


<img alt="HMS%20Victoria.jpg" src="http://victorian-england.co.uk/images/H ... ctoria.jpg">

<img alt="800px-Hms-victoria-c1888.jpg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... -c1888.jpg">


Below is a pic of "the ark" (including people for perspective) as build by a Dutch believer based upon the characteristics and measurements as mentioned in the Bible. However, it's about half the size of the ark as recorded in the Bible: 70 metres (230 ft) long, almost 13 metres (43 ft) high, 9.1/2 metres (30 ft) wide, and "the ark" itself is sat on a barge/pontoon because the builder soon realized what the ERN realized before him but creationists still do not.
- http://www.arkvannoach.com/


<img alt="ark_van_noach.jpg" src="http://maasmonding.web-log.nl/photos/un ... _noach.jpg">


So, entirely based upon the characteristics and measurements as recorded in ye bible, we can see where this is going.

Then, when we get to the Noah crew and the live stock ... the amount of animals ... the necessary room to exercise to avoid atrophy which would otherwise cause the animals to die before the journey is over ... the amount of specific nourishment needed for each species, where to store it, how to keep it fresh ... the inevitable excrement and only a crew of 8 to feed the animals and clean up after them ... the heat the animals would produce, and only one small window for ventilation ... the amount of fresh water needed, how to keep that fresh, where and how to store it, and so on and so forth, the list is endless ... all on board of ye woodsten arke, for the duration of about a year (7:6-16 - 8:13-19) ... poses problems so huge, so impossible to solve, in a logical and realistic manner that is, that even the most brilliant creationist would be extremely hard pressed to save the day.

Have you ever tried to work out just how big ye woodsten arke must have been to carry the assorted animals, the nourishment and have space for cages and exercise areas?

After you get to 900,000 tonnes displacement and still haven't accounted for all the good stuff, you'd better stop because that's three times the size of a supertanker or nine times the size of a nuke aircraft carrier. There's simply no way a woodsten boat could ever be that big, let alone function.

Remember, we calculated that the ark could displace a max of 46,000 tonnes or so, if we were being generous, and that is only the mass of the boat without the animals, the food, the fresh water and so on (Archimedes' Principle you know). Looks like we need at least two more arks just to carry the food, the fresh water, plant life and so on. Where's the mention of the Great Barge Fleet in the Bible?

So much for ye woodsten arke. Now for ye floode.

Latent Heat of Vaporisation (Thermodynamics)

1g of steam condenses to 1g of liquid water plus 2261 joules! A cubic meter of water is a million grams and the surface of the Earth is 5.09 x 10^8 km2 or 5.09 x 1014 m2. Thus, if we drop a measely meter of water a day for 40 days, the amount of energy released is 2261 joules/g * 1,000,000 g/m3 * 5.09 * 10^14 m3 per day or 1.15 * 10^24 joules a day or 249,300,000 megatonnes/day!

The pentagon would envy such an arsenal and couldn't stop drooling over it.

Put another way, for every m. of water level increase, we have to release 2.261 billion joules/m2. At a rate of 1 m/day, this comes to 2.261 billion joules/day/m2 or a radiance of 26 kilowatts/m2, roughly 20 times the brightness of the sun!


Result: the atmosphere rapidly turns into incandescent plasma incinerating poor Noah & Co including ye woodsten arke. Nothing survives, the oceans boil and the land is baked into pottery.

Now what?



Those who concocted ye floode/ye arke stories as real life events had no idea about the grander scheme of things and neither do those who advocate the same today.

We could point out dozens of other problems with ye woodsten ark/ye floode, but let's address just a few:

- The waters to submerge the earth must have come from outwith the earth (otherwise the earth would already have been submerged) and had to be disposed of likewise (otherwise the earth would remain submerged). What is the explanation for this set of phenomena? Magic? Surely not?

- How did mankind as we know it today came to pass, again, out of 8 people from the same descent?

- How did the mayfly (a creeping, crawly thing) survive? <img alt="happy.gif" src="http://www.network54.com/images/happy.gif" width="14" height="14">

- Tapeworm, Leprosy, Cancer, Smallpox, Shingles, Herpes, Polio, Chickenpox, Rabies, Ebola, Hanta, Marburg, Sars, H1N1, Monkeypox, HIV/AIDS and soforth are living organisms too. If they were not on the ark, they died too since '<em><strong>everything</strong> that was <strong>not</strong> <strong>on</strong> the ark <strong>perished</strong>'</em>. (7:4 - 7:21-23). They exist. Thus they survived. They were therefore on the ark.

Parasites require a living host to survive. So, which one of the Noah crew carried herpes, which one hookworm, which one cancer and so on? Which ones carried HIV/AIDS, Syphilis and the other "sinful" sexually-transmitted diseases that would not have given Noah & Co passage on a vessel designed by the Judeo-Christian deity for the holiest of humans? And ... which ones carried Ebola, rendering its carrier deceased within days?

- Everything that was not on the ark perished. (7:4 - 7:21-23)
This infers God had to re-create every life form not on the ark (since they did not survive the flood). How come Genesis doesn't seem to mention the re-creation of all that perished? And, if God could have re-created -and did re-create- every life form that did not survive the flood, which he obviously did otherwise they wouldn't exist, doesn't that render rather redundant the whole ark thing anyway?


There's a good reason why ye creation account is quite silent on lots of stuff including microbes, germs; archaea, amino acids, bacteria, viruses, parasites (and their hosts), the mayfly, (the delicate nature of) aquatic life, and so on, without which life wouldn't even exist: those who concocted ye Bible, including Genesis, didn't know about that - and what you do not know, you cannot, and therefore fail to, mention.

Such is the nature of incomprehensibility: those suffering it cannot help but being the experts in displaying it, in effect, granting the courtesy of instant clarification. <img alt="happy.gif" src="http://www.network54.com/images/happy.gif" width="14" height="14">
<p align="left">___________________________
When dealing with abstractions
one should treat them as such
If not, one is mistaken, dishonest
or ...... but let's not go there ...



Always keep in mind that the human brain can only comprehend 3 categories to put information in.

New!! Improved!! Now With T-Formula!!
All evil present does not mean you have to submit to it. You go a long way to make blame and


ask questions that are answered within you. Just like God imputes sin to the whole human race


by one man Adam, why would He not impute righteousness by one Man, the Lord Jesus Christ in


whom we are born the second time. One must rise above the Ego since no man can conquer nature!


Constantly you kick against the pricks. You are your worst enemy and make an affront to your


own salvation. Lets suppose God did not impute sin to all men, all men would have sinned

sooner or later because all "wills" have to be tested to belike God's will. Take a new born


child and give that child time and no to long from birth that child manifests the affects of a


fallen nature. He lies and denies what he by fallen nature commit. He blames another for a


wrong he has done. Its always this way.....
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: August 11th, 2005, 6:54 pm

November 19th, 2010, 2:51 pm #5

There is no wrong place for one's mind to be on its evolutinary path. I say this so you will know my reply contains no condemnation. I have a daughter and three granddaughters who think like you. I did not try to 'save' them knowing that's the function or their Christs within...not Jesus in the sky. So, if you believe nothing else I say, believe that I'm not trying to 'save' you.

My parents, my sister, and grandparents plus countless cousins believe basically what you believe and I love all of them. I too believed it for the first twenty years of my life.

I know I post it a lot, trying to get it to penetrate the fog of worship in which churchanity's collective mind is polarised (it won't alwasy be), but I'll ask again. Why do Churchanity people like yourself adamantly insist the Bible is God's word and should be taken literally, but refuse to do so in certain cases.

What Churchanity doesn't say is that it is understood among them that every word of the Bible (and there's a Bible for every interpretation) should be taken literally except in those places where scripture refutes their accepted interpretation. Can you explain why, in those places in the Bible where God's word and the interpretations of Churchanity disagree that Churchanity changes God's word to agree with their's, and not the reverse? It's as if you believe God's word is incorrect and your's is correct.

Do you (Churchanity) hope that the newborn won't see the original when they become adults? You do realise these people will be come aware of the original, feel they've been suped, and will wax exceedingly vexed. (Dince y'all love ancient stuff, I thought I'd use that).

Tell me, if you can, why Churchanity denies Psalms 82.6 and John 20:34? Is it because Churchanity is so buried in its emotion-devotion-worship stage in evolution therefore so badly needs something to worship, that they cannot bring themselves to agree with He whom they loudly and persistently proclaim is God and Wno inspired the writing of the Bible?

And isn't the changed Bible not the
Word of God but of Churchanity?
The dog [is] turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: October 1st, 2006, 10:04 am

November 19th, 2010, 3:32 pm #6

All evil present does not mean you have to submit to it. You go a long way to make blame and


ask questions that are answered within you. Just like God imputes sin to the whole human race


by one man Adam, why would He not impute righteousness by one Man, the Lord Jesus Christ in


whom we are born the second time. One must rise above the Ego since no man can conquer nature!


Constantly you kick against the pricks. You are your worst enemy and make an affront to your


own salvation. Lets suppose God did not impute sin to all men, all men would have sinned

sooner or later because all "wills" have to be tested to belike God's will. Take a new born


child and give that child time and no to long from birth that child manifests the affects of a


fallen nature. He lies and denies what he by fallen nature commit. He blames another for a


wrong he has done. Its always this way.....
BTW, hi!!

Love
Jackie
Quote
Like
Share

Srtiver
Srtiver

November 19th, 2010, 3:50 pm #7

The dog [is] turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.
Very Christlike. As usual, no answers, just (in this case) nausiating scripture.
Quote
Share

Seoc Colla
Seoc Colla

November 19th, 2010, 5:37 pm #8

Churchianity avoids the Natural Law like a plague, preferring to perpetuate their constantly reinforced 'herd mentality'.
All are equal, so all 'sin' is equally damned and abhorrent -(well maybe not including theologians) - but is this really so?

There are Souls more enlightened than others, so would not their responsiblities and status reflect this?
The Law of 'Equal and opposite' reveals that as low as a Soul can fall - so correspndingly can they rise.

Does that not point to an endless hierarchy of potential unlimited Spiritual attainment available to the entire Human Race? Does it not suggest that 'penalties' (wrong term) also vary to the same degree?
The unawakened Soul would attract little or no 'demotion', whereas the enlightened Soul would give serious consideration to consequences.

This would also serve as a pointer to the Natural Laws being teachers, automatically operating with precise mathematical precision at all times. To each their own.
Quote
Share

lox
lox

November 20th, 2010, 2:30 am #9

Jackie?
Quote
Share

JVH
Joined: July 20th, 2009, 1:33 pm

November 20th, 2010, 7:42 am #10

All evil present does not mean you have to submit to it. You go a long way to make blame and


ask questions that are answered within you. Just like God imputes sin to the whole human race


by one man Adam, why would He not impute righteousness by one Man, the Lord Jesus Christ in


whom we are born the second time. One must rise above the Ego since no man can conquer nature!


Constantly you kick against the pricks. You are your worst enemy and make an affront to your


own salvation. Lets suppose God did not impute sin to all men, all men would have sinned

sooner or later because all "wills" have to be tested to belike God's will. Take a new born


child and give that child time and no to long from birth that child manifests the affects of a


fallen nature. He lies and denies what he by fallen nature commit. He blames another for a


wrong he has done. Its always this way.....
Thanks for your response.

Unfortunately, the response doesn't address what it is in response to, it addresses something else, instead of addressing its content on its own merits.


Always keep in mind that the human brain can only comprehend 3 categories to put information in.

New!! Improved!! Now With T-Formula!!
Quote
Like
Share