Hi My Name Is Aaron And Im A Christian How Are You Today/nite/morning/afternoon?

[ConureDelSol]

God can reportedly harden people for a particular purpose

Even as a Christian I found that gross and incompatible with a God of love. God hardening people's hearts is completely manipulating people as pawns in some personal cosmic game. The OT God is really, if you read it with an open mind, to be blunt, a Warlord.

 

It's good and fine to believe in God. Another to take primitive man's thoughts about God as authoritative and literally true. You should know this.

 

Not to mention this whole concept is a huge hit to the "Free Will" argument.

[Guest end3]

She was saying that phsical principles have no emotions......so I was understanding that if the particles had no emotion, that she was concluding the the organization of them couldn't either. All I was asking is that she give me the mechanism for the process......just the same as she was wanting me to explain things beyond my knowledge base. Just thinking it would have been a fair swap of information had she been able to finish her assertion.

 

My assertion was that we have within reality, irrational, illogical spirituality that is largely not understood by science. I just don't know how one can totally rule out some form of reality because we can't "prove" it at this point. To my understanding, she has pity for the poor people that still believe such. To me, that is short sighted and lacking grace for another's journey. No biggie.

 

My understanding of your argument is something like this:

1. some accounts of phenomena are incomplete because they are reductive

2. therefore they may fail to address important aspects of a phenomenon

3. Akheia's account of spiritual experience is reductive

4. therefore she may fail to address important aspects of it

5. therefore Christianity may be true

6. therefore Christianity is true

 

I may be missing some things that you want to hold. In any case, you have the work of clarifying your premises, showing that they are true, or at least, probable, accounting for the evidence AGAINST your assumptions, and showing how the conclusion (my 6) follows. My schema of what I take as your implicit move from 5 to 6 may misrepresent your reasoning, so if it does, please correct. As it stands, your analogy between our experience of emotions and our experience of spiritual phenomena is flawed, because there is an intersubjective agreement among all people about the experience and signs of the fundamental human emotions, but there is not such intersubjective agreement about what I'm calling spiritual phenomena. Your reasoning at most suggests that some other religion might also be true, and it does not demonstrate anything because you have not established that any of your premises is true. Even 1 has to be argued.

 

Between 5 & 6 rests on faith, which, by the way is, in my opinion, is an argument for Christianity.

 

Per your other statement, I am equating emotional love to spiritual love, aka the Christian God. Pardon the confusion.

1Jo 4:8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

[Guest end3]

God can reportedly harden people for a particular purpose

Even as a Christian I found that gross and incompatible with a God of love. God hardening people's hearts is completely manipulating people as pawns in some personal cosmic game. The OT God is really, if you read it with an open mind, to be blunt, a Warlord.

 

It's good and fine to believe in God. Another to take primitive man's thoughts about God as authoritative and literally true. You should know this.

 

Not to mention this whole concept is a huge hit to the "Free Will" argument.

 

Off the top of my head CdS, I would think that intiating the building of a moral base would require moral people.....God killing the amoral. Obviously rules and force were needed to "pour" the foundation of morality as man seems to struggle on his own. Note we take great pains today to keep contamination from concrete and the base has to be per some specific design. right? But you also can't deny that there were those God found with inherent morality in which he found favor......the "arks" that carried men.....like the structure, the Cross, that carries Christ. These would be Noah, Abraham, et. al.

 

Today, it appears we are headed for increasing morality via this mechanism, but free will exists on the surface of the structure that ultimately is a unity of past morality. Kind of like a tree.....the sap, leaves, etc., are ailve on top, but in the middle is unified celluose.....that has "died". Kind of the "die to self" that Chrisitanity talks about.

 

Clear as mud, I know, but will be glad to elaborate if you are not understanding.

[Antlerman]

God can reportedly harden people for a particular purpose

Even as a Christian I found that gross and incompatible with a God of love. God hardening people's hearts is completely manipulating people as pawns in some personal cosmic game. The OT God is really, if you read it with an open mind, to be blunt, a Warlord.

 

It's good and fine to believe in God. Another to take primitive man's thoughts about God as authoritative and literally true. You should know this.

 

Not to mention this whole concept is a huge hit to the "Free Will" argument.

 

Off the top of my head CdS, I would think that intiating the building of a moral base would require moral people.....God killing the amoral. Obviously rules and force were needed to "pour" the foundation of morality as man seems to struggle on his own. Note we take great pains today to keep contamination from concrete and the base has to be per some specific design. right? But you also can't deny that there were those God found with inherent morality in which he found favor......the "arks" that carried men.....like the structure, the Cross, that carries Christ. These would be Noah, Abraham, et. al.

 

Today, it appears we are headed for increasing morality via this mechanism, but free will exists on the surface of the structure that ultimately is a unity of past morality. Kind of like a tree.....the sap, leaves, etc., are ailve on top, but in the middle is unified celluose.....that has "died". Kind of the "die to self" that Chrisitanity talks about.

 

Clear as mud, I know, but will be glad to elaborate if you are not understanding.

None of which gives reason as to why God would take someone's heart and deliberately harden it, then condemn them for it, because it served some great cosmic plan. Forgive me, but you speak of absolute foundations of morality? Where is it there? To me, it would be served by actually being absolute morality like a light that all plants are drawn to reach for, instead of some manipulating despot who plays with people's lives to serve his ultimate control over his kingdom as a giant warlord.

 

Face it End, it's far easier to just accept that the OT contains images of God imagined by primitive peoples. Why such marriage to a book and not a higher spirit of truth?

[Guest end3]

God can reportedly harden people for a particular purpose

Even as a Christian I found that gross and incompatible with a God of love. God hardening people's hearts is completely manipulating people as pawns in some personal cosmic game. The OT God is really, if you read it with an open mind, to be blunt, a Warlord.

 

It's good and fine to believe in God. Another to take primitive man's thoughts about God as authoritative and literally true. You should know this.

 

Not to mention this whole concept is a huge hit to the "Free Will" argument.

 

Off the top of my head CdS, I would think that intiating the building of a moral base would require moral people.....God killing the amoral. Obviously rules and force were needed to "pour" the foundation of morality as man seems to struggle on his own. Note we take great pains today to keep contamination from concrete and the base has to be per some specific design. right? But you also can't deny that there were those God found with inherent morality in which he found favor......the "arks" that carried men.....like the structure, the Cross, that carries Christ. These would be Noah, Abraham, et. al.

 

Today, it appears we are headed for increasing morality via this mechanism, but free will exists on the surface of the structure that ultimately is a unity of past morality. Kind of like a tree.....the sap, leaves, etc., are ailve on top, but in the middle is unified celluose.....that has "died". Kind of the "die to self" that Chrisitanity talks about.

 

Clear as mud, I know, but will be glad to elaborate if you are not understanding.

None of which gives reason as to why God would take someone's heart and deliberately harden it, then condemn them for it, because it served some great cosmic plan. Forgive me, but you speak of absolute foundations of morality? Where is it there? To me, it would be served by actually being absolute morality like a light that all plants are drawn to reach for, instead of some manipulating despot who plays with people's lives to serve his ultimate control over his kingdom as a giant warlord.

 

Face it End, it's far easier to just accept that the OT contains images of God imagined by primitive peoples. Why such marriage to a book and not a higher spirit of truth?

 

What part do you don't get? What do you REALLY understand about the Law? How can you say that you KNOW absolute morality? I just finished saying that God found FAVOR with some and used this as a base for the advent of Christ. Christ is reported as the only one to fulfill the Law, no? So the absoluteness would reside in Christ and not the man-contaminated foundation.

 

You said it. it's far EASIER than to see the types. We do the same with buildings today. A godlike engineer designs the foundation.....blah blah. I won't bore you.

 

And who says we know what God does with the people in the end? Even so, it's his sandbox.

[FeelHappy]

What part do you don't get? What do you REALLY understand about the Law? How can you say that you KNOW absolute morality? I just finished saying that God found FAVOR with some and used this as a base for the advent of Christ. Christ is reported as the only one to fulfill the Law, no? So the absoluteness would reside in Christ and not the man-contaminated foundation.

 

I don't know absolute morality, but I do know one thing. God hardened pharaoh's heart when moses came to speak to him. Pharaoh didn't have a choice in believing moses and therefore god hardened his heart and used it to kill every first born in egypt. I just can't fathom how forcing someone to do something and then punishing them with an extreme punishment (thousands of deaths) can ever be absolutely moral in any culture or mindset.

[mymistake]

God can reportedly harden people for a particular purpose

Even as a Christian I found that gross and incompatible with a God of love. God hardening people's hearts is completely manipulating people as pawns in some personal cosmic game. The OT God is really, if you read it with an open mind, to be blunt, a Warlord.

 

It's good and fine to believe in God. Another to take primitive man's thoughts about God as authoritative and literally true. You should know this.

 

Not to mention this whole concept is a huge hit to the "Free Will" argument.

 

Off the top of my head CdS, I would think that intiating the building of a moral base would require moral people.....God killing the amoral.

 

The God of the Old Testament was amoral. He wasn't looking for moral people. He was looking for obedient people who would worship Him. This amoral God could have softened Pharaoh's heart so that the people would go and then when they wander out in the uninhabited desert God could have turned that uninhabitable desert into a lush paradise. There would be no need to kill any women or babies who already live there if God turned an empty land into paradise. But instead God hardened Pharoah's heart because God's plan was to kill the first born of everybody in Egypt and to commit wholesale genocide in Canaan. Good thing the whole story is fiction. The Hebrews never left Egypt and never wandered in the desert. They made up the story.

 

Obviously rules and force were needed to "pour" the foundation of morality as man seems to struggle on his own. Note we take great pains today to keep contamination from concrete and the base has to be per some specific design. right? But you also can't deny that there were those God found with inherent morality in which he found favor......the "arks" that carried men.....like the structure, the Cross, that carries Christ. These would be Noah, Abraham, et. al.

 

Why does this all powerful God need to use such crude methods? You do realize that if we want we have the power right now to engineer behavior in rats. We can map and modify their DNA and control their breeding. We don't need to kill every rat on the planet. We are more sophisticated that the God of the Old Testament because humans during the Bronze Age couldn't dream up anything better. Oh and the ark story was made up too. There never was a global flood. There have been millions of local floods - who knows how many were witnessed by early humans. Flood myths are all over the world because humans have had to constantly struggle with local floods. Many lives must have been lost as we learned what to not do.

[Antlerman]

What part do you don't get? What do you REALLY understand about the Law?

Even if for argument's sake I'll allow for a later understanding of an early law to have had some overall divine purpose, I still see no way to be able to find some sort of transcendent Wisdom in God actively shutting down anyone's ability to act morally, as part of some greater plan. It no different than saying, exterminating Jews to purify the way for the Master Race to dominate the world? Is an act of evil moral because it is imagined to serve a greater good? How can it be absolute morality if it compromises morality itself?

 

How can you say that you KNOW absolute morality?

 

I very specifically did not say I can define "absolute morality". What I said was the "absolute foundations for morality." That is very different than saying what acts are right or wrong. I did not say what you said I did.

 

You said it. it's far EASIER than to see the types.

I didn't specifically say that (putting words into my mouth again in the same post). However, yes to this too. Seeing "types" is a matter of creative imagination, trying to make puzzle pieces fit together after the fact, starting with a self-referencing assumption that there was some 'master-plan' to the whole affair. That requires a whole lot more creative juices, which to say the least will be fraught with assumptions and logic errors, than to simply see in the Bible exactly what you would say about all other religions where their early and later thoughts about the nature of God progress from primitive to more evolved. It's hypocritical to see your own religion as exempt from evolution. And that BTW, is NOT an act of faith at all! That is cognitive dissonance and a violation of faith.

 

Let it go End. Remove those simple obstacles to your path through an act of faith. You'll be OK.

[Antlerman]

The God of the Old Testament was amoral. He wasn't looking for moral people. He was looking for obedient people who would worship Him.

Exactly the description of a Warlord.

[♦ ficino ♦]

 

Between 5 & 6 rests on faith, which, by the way is, in my opinion, is an argument for Christianity.

 

Per your other statement, I am equating emotional love to spiritual love, aka the Christian God. Pardon the confusion.

1Jo 4:8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

 

I understand that you have faith, End3. Your faith, and anyone else's, is not an argument for anything.

 

On your second point, many of the verses people have been quoting above either show that God as depicted in the Bible is not love, or else that we can have no conception of what "love" means when it's applied to God (so I John is meaningless), or that the Bible contradicts itself.

 

So far you have provided nothing but assertions. Assertions don't provide reason for anyone to join you in your faith commitment.

[Guest end3]

Between 5 & 6 rests on faith, which, by the way is, in my opinion, is an argument for Christianity.

 

Per your other statement, I am equating emotional love to spiritual love, aka the Christian God. Pardon the confusion.

1Jo 4:8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

 

I understand that you have faith, End3. Your faith, and anyone else's, is not an argument for anything.

 

On your second point, many of the verses people have been quoting above either show that God as depicted in the Bible is not love, or else that we can have no conception of what "love" means when it's applied to God (so I John is meaningless), or that the Bible contradicts itself.

 

So far you have provided nothing but assertions. Assertions don't provide reason for anyone to join you in your faith commitment.

 

I will attempt to explain the reasons I believe to A as that is what her post seems to be needing. What irritates me is her assertion that sprituality is ONLY discerned by measurement and subsequently her faith/decisions rest on this.....and that the balance of humanity are in a "sad" state because we are so ignorant to the "facts". The facts at this point remain lacking quantitative methods when it comes to love (to my understanding).....perhaps qualitative in that we can see physiological changes, but? And again, I see no proposed mechanism to back the "facts". So her statement comes across as condescening and arrogant. I very seriously doubt she is really like this.

 

Esentially, she provides no facts within this physiological realm.

 

And the kicker. Is what she is stating, and Antlerman as well........it is easier to go MY way,.......I'll make up my OWN god. .....a recurrent theme in the Bible.

 

Perhaps she is equallly irritated with me for not seeing her perspective......which was what I was alluding to initially, that neither of us will, or want to sacrifice to see the resulting God/Unity of a relationship between us based on sacrifice and trust. <Insert more scripture here>.

[Guest end3]

The God of the Old Testament was amoral. He wasn't looking for moral people. He was looking for obedient people who would worship Him. This amoral God could have softened Pharaoh's heart so that the people would go and then when they wander out in the uninhabited desert God could have turned that uninhabitable desert into a lush paradise. There would be no need to kill any women or babies who already live there if God turned an empty land into paradise. But instead God hardened Pharoah's heart because God's plan was to kill the first born of everybody in Egypt and to commit wholesale genocide in Canaan. Good thing the whole story is fiction. The Hebrews never left Egypt and never wandered in the desert. They made up the story.

 

No, the story starts out in paradise, remember? And obedience is typically the first step in a process of "understanding".

 

 

 

Why does this all powerful God need to use such crude methods? You do realize that if we want we have the power right now to engineer behavior in rats. We can map and modify their DNA and control their breeding. We don't need to kill every rat on the planet. We are more sophisticated that the God of the Old Testament because humans during the Bronze Age couldn't dream up anything better. Oh and the ark story was made up too. There never was a global flood. There have been millions of local floods - who knows how many were witnessed by early humans. Flood myths are all over the world because humans have had to constantly struggle with local floods. Many lives must have been lost as we learned what to not do.

 

You have any notion what the products of rat behavior modification might be??? Oh yeah, we have science that reassures us. Lol.

 

Edit: Rat sodomy? Sorry, I couldn't resist.

[mymistake]

........it is easier to go MY way,.......I'll make up my OWN god. .....a recurrent theme in the Bible.

 

Yes. King Josiah made up his own God when he had someone write Deuteronomy and then had a priest "find" it. Ezra made up his own God when he created the Old Testament. Paul created his own God when he claimed to get a revelation. John of Patmos created his own God when he had a vision. Then later on Constantine created his own God when he ordered Christians to unify. The result of that was Trinity, a Christian remake of a pagan dogma. There has been a lot of God making going on.

[mymistake]

Good thing the whole story is fiction. The Hebrews never left Egypt and never wandered in the desert. They made up the story.

No, the story starts out in paradise, remember? And obedience is typically the first step in a process of "understanding".

 

I don't see what Genesis has to do with it. How does obedience result in understanding? I think knowledge leads to understanding.

 

 

You have any notion what the products of rat behavior modification might be??? Oh yeah, we have science that reassures us. Lol.

 

Science does not reassure us. Perhaps you are thinking of religion. Science looks for the truth. I don't know why we would alter rat behavior other than to learn. However bacteria could be useful to us. We might be able to modify them to serve us - eating spilled oil and so on. But my point was that the God of the OT was not sophisticated. He couldn't change evil people. He could only kill everyone. He couldn't soften Pharoh's heart and then make a paradise out of uninhabited desert because then God couldn't kill everyone. God killed a lot of people in that story. How does that make God moral?

[Guest end3]

I don't see what Genesis has to do with it. How does obedience result in understanding? I think knowledge leads to understanding

 

You had said that God could have made everything paradise like forgoing the teaching of humanity. I was just saying that I believe the Garden of Eden was the original place man was....that humanity opted for the school of hard knocks.

 

Obiedience before knowlegde. Mom says wash your hands.....but it takes the child getting sick to understand and then know.

 

Science does not reassure us. Perhaps you are thinking of religion. Science looks for the truth. I don't know why we would alter rat behavior other than to learn. However bacteria could be useful to us. We might be able to modify them to serve us - eating spilled oil and so on. But my point was that the God of the OT was not sophisticated. He couldn't change evil people. He could only kill everyone. He couldn't soften Pharoh's heart and then make a paradise out of uninhabited desert because then God couldn't kill everyone. God killed a lot of people in that story. How does that make God moral?

 

I very seriously doubt humanity will discover a unified theory. If we do, we're in trouble.

 

Moral in the fact that the overall plan develops morality via a plan where humanity teaches itself. What would be the value or where would lie the freedom otherwise? The joy.

 

I realize my mind jumps thoughts and I doesn't fill in the gaps with sentences, so please bear with me. Thanks,

[Guest end3]

Even if for argument's sake I'll allow for a later understanding of an early law to have had some overall divine purpose, I still see no way to be able to find some sort of transcendent Wisdom in God actively shutting down anyone's ability to act morally, as part of some greater plan. It no different than saying, exterminating Jews to purify the way for the Master Race to dominate the world? Is an act of evil moral because it is imagined to serve a greater good? How can it be absolute morality if it compromises morality itself?

 

I'm proposing absolute morailty in Heaven, that we are in the process of moving that direction. Like I said, absolute morality would be represented in Christ's fullfillment. or at least a He was a step in the learning of or mechanism for transcendent. Again, you can't tell a child "be moral" and expect morality. How would we know moral or give it any value if amoral didn't exist? The Gan story is a good example of our choice.

 

 

 

I very specifically did not say I can define "absolute morality". What I said was the "absolute foundations for morality." That is very different than saying what acts are right or wrong. I did not say what you said I did.

 

You are making my point in that as a child you are saying, "I can do it MYSELF Dad"!

 

I didn't specifically say that (putting words into my mouth again in the same post). However, yes to this too. Seeing "types" is a matter of creative imagination, trying to make puzzle pieces fit together after the fact, starting with a self-referencing assumption that there was some 'master-plan' to the whole affair. That requires a whole lot more creative juices, which to say the least will be fraught with assumptions and logic errors, than to simply see in the Bible exactly what you would say about all other religions where their early and later thoughts about the nature of God progress from primitive to more evolved. It's hypocritical to see your own religion as exempt from evolution. And that BTW, is NOT an act of faith at all! That is cognitive dissonance and a violation of faith.

 

I told you the other day in the Col that evolution worked the same way as it promotes life, did I not? Shall I pull the post?

 

I'll have to work on a summary statement or theme.

[mymistake]

You had said that God could have made everything paradise like forgoing the teaching of humanity. I was just saying that I believe the Garden of Eden was the original place man was....that humanity opted for the school of hard knocks. Obiedience before knowlegde. Mom says wash your hands.....but it takes the child getting sick to understand and then know.

 

Oh. The problem is that there never was a Garden of Eden. Six million years ago our ancestors lived like animals. But even looking at the Garden of Eden story as a fable it still doesn't make God moral to punish all humanity over a choice made by two people who were not given the power to make the right choice and were tricked into the wrong choice by a third party. God is still amoral.

 

 

Science does not reassure us. Perhaps you are thinking of religion. Science looks for the truth. I don't know why we would alter rat behavior other than to learn. However bacteria could be useful to us. We might be able to modify them to serve us - eating spilled oil and so on. But my point was that the God of the OT was not sophisticated. He couldn't change evil people. He could only kill everyone. He couldn't soften Pharoh's heart and then make a paradise out of uninhabited desert because then God couldn't kill everyone. God killed a lot of people in that story. How does that make God moral?

I very seriously doubt humanity will discover a unified theory. If we do, we're in trouble.

 

Why?

 

Moral in the fact that the overall plan develops morality via a plan where humanity teaches itself. What would be the value or where would lie the freedom otherwise? The joy. I realize my mind jumps thoughts and I doesn't fill in the gaps with sentences, so please bear with me. Thanks,

 

Humanity has been teaching itself this whole time. We get better at it as time goes on.

[florduh]

I got banned for being an ass

Holy Jeez, if every ass got banned from here I'd wind up having to talk to myself!

[Noggy]

HI IM GOD, I NEVER CHANGE

 

BUT I WRITE A BOOK THAT WILL BE ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO UNDERSTAND A FEW YEARS AFTER I WRITE IT

 

OH, I ALSO CHANGE HOW I DO THINGS BASED ON THE CULTURE OF PEOPLE I AM CURRENTLY FUCKING WITH

 

HI IM GOD, I NEVER CHANGE

[Guest end3]

Why?

 

Because we lack the knowledge and wisdom of how to utilize it.

[Guest end3]

I got banned for being an ass

Holy Jeez, if every ass got banned from here I'd wind up having to talk to myself!

 

I think the Mods have a threshold......if x number of complaints come in about a post......BAM! 30 days.

 

Edit: I drive the ratings up here as well. Dave's paying me under the table.

[Guest end3]

HI IM GOD, I NEVER CHANGE

 

BUT I WRITE A BOOK THAT WILL BE ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO UNDERSTAND A FEW YEARS AFTER I WRITE IT

 

OH, I ALSO CHANGE HOW I DO THINGS BASED ON THE CULTURE OF PEOPLE I AM CURRENTLY FUCKING WITH

 

HI IM GOD, I NEVER CHANGE

 

I think it's ok for us to call each other names in the Lion's Den Noggy. We can pick up where we left off 30 days ago?

[Antlerman]

Even if for argument's sake I'll allow for a later understanding of an early law to have had some overall divine purpose, I still see no way to be able to find some sort of transcendent Wisdom in God actively shutting down anyone's ability to act morally, as part of some greater plan. It no different than saying, exterminating Jews to purify the way for the Master Race to dominate the world? Is an act of evil moral because it is imagined to serve a greater good? How can it be absolute morality if it compromises morality itself?

 

I'm proposing absolute morailty in Heaven, that we are in the process of moving that direction. Like I said, absolute morality would be represented in Christ's fullfillment. or at least a He was a step in the learning of or mechanism for transcendent. Again, you can't tell a child "be moral" and expect morality. How would we know moral or give it any value if amoral didn't exist? The Gan story is a good example of our choice.

Two things. First, for the second time now, you completely avoided my directly challenging the morality of a God who manipulates the free-will of any humans as part of greater "master-plan" for himself. Nothing above address that, nor the previous post, nor the one before. Why are you avoiding answering? Hoping we won't notice?

 

Secondly, I do not believe, even if there is some heaven in an afterlife of immortal beings, that morality even exists at all. The reason being twofold. One, morality is tied to empathy. Empathy cannot exist if there is no mortality. You cannot relate yourself to another and act towards their welfare if all things are taken care of by God for them in heaven, so to speak. They never die, they never want, they never suffer, etc, neither them nor us. So therefore we have nothing to empathize, and modify our behaviors to improve! We have nothing in ourselves to relate to the plight of another with. Therefore no morality is necessary or possibly. The other reason is because if we are 'perfected in God', the we are absolute Love, and Love cannot possibly act in any way other than Good. "Love works no ill", says the Bible. There need be no moral rules in heaven, because we are incapable of acting contrary to Love.

 

When I say the 'absolute foundation for morality', I am speaking of that Love. That is an absolute, it is a Nature that works no ill. It is not a damned law book, silly one.

 

I very specifically did not say I can define "absolute morality". What I said was the "absolute foundations for morality." That is very different than saying what acts are right or wrong. I did not say what you said I did.

 

You are making my point in that as a child you are saying, "I can do it MYSELF Dad"!

What??? Are you particularly dense today? Even your Bible says this. "In that day the law will be written on the tables of their hearts". It comes from be transformed into that Love. It's not 'by myself' as you say it, but as Yourself, with a capital letter. Your true nature as the Divine. It's not from your silly little ego. Child? Most definitely not.

 

I didn't specifically say that (putting words into my mouth again in the same post). However, yes to this too. Seeing "types" is a matter of creative imagination, trying to make puzzle pieces fit together after the fact, starting with a self-referencing assumption that there was some 'master-plan' to the whole affair. That requires a whole lot more creative juices, which to say the least will be fraught with assumptions and logic errors, than to simply see in the Bible exactly what you would say about all other religions where their early and later thoughts about the nature of God progress from primitive to more evolved. It's hypocritical to see your own religion as exempt from evolution. And that BTW, is NOT an act of faith at all! That is cognitive dissonance and a violation of faith.

 

I told you the other day in the Col that evolution worked the same way as it promotes life, did I not? Shall I pull the post?

Then you are agreeing with me that the OT was written by primitive, less evolved humans expressing their perceptions of God through their cultures, just the same way all other religions have? No difference? Good. This is progress finally.

[Antlerman]

HI IM GOD, I NEVER CHANGE

 

BUT I WRITE A BOOK THAT WILL BE ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO UNDERSTAND A FEW YEARS AFTER I WRITE IT

 

OH, I ALSO CHANGE HOW I DO THINGS BASED ON THE CULTURE OF PEOPLE I AM CURRENTLY FUCKING WITH

 

HI IM GOD, I NEVER CHANGE

 

I think it's ok for us to call each other names in the Lion's Den Noggy. We can pick up where we left off 30 days ago?

Let's not.

[mymistake]

Why?

 

Because we lack the knowledge and wisdom of how to utilize it.

 

That is always the way it has been. We discover something. Then we develop the knowledge and wisdom of how to utilize it afterwards. The human mind is not able to figure out how to use something we have not discovered. So we invent the car. Then we take decades to figure out how best to use it and how to make it safer. It's a process that continues even today. We invented the plane. Then we found ways to make it useful. Then we found ways to make it safer. It just keeps going.