Fair enough; you were being too clever and subtle for my density.
Whereas I was raised to hear that nothing at all bad happened to him in Hell, and that God personally tortured him in Gethsemene. Different strokes for different theologies, I suppose; regardless if you think that Jesus was ever served up with supernatural torture, then that’s something you should have (or want) an explanation for.
And I’m still of the opinion that those two verses in Luke cast severe doubt that Jesus was merely having an emo moment, but whichever; a person who’s not a textual literalist can discard them without difficulty.
First I am not trying to convert you, so please understand that. It’s not my job nor do I desire that. I do appreciate and value the time and constructive criticism you have given me which hopefully will help me share my views better with others, which is what I’m trying, actually pretty hard, to do here. Also I don’t believe in conversion, but only a mutual building up of each other, in this case interchanging ideas and concepts. As for why I don’t believe in conversion, it’s very simple:
1 - We are all part of the collective, so we all have part of the whole, all have something to contribute. If I convert you, you have lost (or hidden) your part, so that is a loss.
2 - If I were the one that brought you to God, I could boast, if we build each other up, then neither one of us could boast over the other.
3 - It ain’t my f’n job
I hope that clarifies my intentions.
I don’t particularly like the term ‘the collective’ when referring to the child as it is a single body, though the term ‘the collective’ is more applicable when referring to all of humanity combined in this child. So I will add a third term ‘the child’ when referring to the combined entity as a single being. I feel this will also add clarity.
I am also going to use the fetal child analogy as I feel it works very well.
Yes because the child died (more below)
The mechanism for the members of the collective suffering is that the child’s body died, therefore the collective entered a state of eternal death which includes suffering that was known and intended, with eternal life suffering is impossible. So the short answer is death sucks, and here on earth though we think we are alive we are really existing in a state of death therefore it is possible for you to stub your toe.
As to why that is, why the state of death contains suffering, I would speculate is because of the small ‘g’ god (aka Satan) that inflicted death on the child with the knowledge that such a death would cause suffering to the members of the collective (which satan does not value the members of the collective), though what Satan did does not necessarily cause suffering to the child as the child may have been too undeveloped to have been self aware. Part of any god’s powers include creating realities based on intention. Satan’s actions of killing the child before the child becomes self aware has the intentions of sparing the child suffering, but the cells (the collective) he knows will suffer but he doesn’t really care.
What you state, though true, is pretty much irrelevant however, because we all die with varying amounts of suffering. When someone suffers with cancer we could just as well say that person suffered because God went out of his way to have have this person develop cancer - which is also true.
So you have not shown a distinction between Jesus suffering & death and the suffering & death of any person except very ironically by pointing to scripture which you admit below you don’t care about.
It was more to express the different scope of the child vs the members of the collecting that I feel is important. The child is of the size of a stellar being (this is shown in the terms describing the woman), Jesus is the size of any individual member of the collective (the size of a man).
It is also along the lines of my believe as this child in Revelation is born into the heavens we, the collective, will then become a space traveling species leaving the ‘womb’ of ‘Mother Earth’ just as the child leaves the womb of that woman. I add this to help understand the scale of the child and the relationship between what the child is experiencing as a single being and what we as members of the collective experience and to show that there is a relationship between the 2 experiences.
Using the fetal child model I can also speculate a form of detachment that humanity has with God and to put forth a reason, it is for the new life to form. Just as a man and woman get together and have a child. The child is separated from the man for a time. This is easier to understand with the older models of conception where a ‘small person’ comes out of the man’s penis and develops in the womb compared to the modern scientific understanding of conception. Though the modern scientific model of conception is actually more accurate to describe this, but harder and more complex to describe.
Okay then, you’re not trying to convert me. That’s just the way I like it.
I find myself wondering what distinction you see between this “child” and the Collective as I’ve described it. If you removed the Collective from the child, do you believe something would be left? If so, what?
If the issue is that you don’t believe that a collective of things can simultaneously be a single creature, well, I don’t know what to say. The human body is a collective of cells and fluids and the like all stuck together, and is still a distinct thing. The human brain is a collective of brain cells and chemicals, and it’s sentient! (I am aware you may not think brains think. Not my fight.) And going back to my initial analogy, your computer is a pile of small peices of hardware stuck and screwed and soldered together, yet existing in its little mind is the ability for you to play Pong, even though there is no Pong Part. So when I say the Collective with-a-capital-C, I refer to a possibly-sentient entity composed wholly of moving parts called people.
Or more accurately, I’m making the arbitrary assumption that in your theology people have souls, and that these souls are what are connected together via supernatural means to form a collective entity. I’m quite certain I’m not physically connected to any other person at the moment, after all.
At the moment I’m reluctant to refer to the Collective as a child because that sounds like it’s flirting with lexical ambiguity and verbal legerdemaine again - like with that Jesus/Jesus confusion. Whatever this “child” is, it’s not what we normally think of as a child; for one thing, it’s apparently bigger than a Buick. Children typically aren’t. Also it’s nonphysical. And, of course, dead.
That’s not actually a mechanism; that’s just a reiteration of what you think happens with no explanation for how it happens. Plus there’s the problem that you’re using ‘death’ as another technical term here, because by the normal definition if you’re wandering around stubbing your toe, we can be pretty sure you’re not dead. Which mean that (like with the Jesus/Jesus thing), we have to take a moment and figure out what you’re actually talking about, and what it actually means in a practical sense. And which kind of death that child of yours is experiencing, while we’re at it.
I spent a while speculating on what you might mean, but I eventually decided against it. I’ll just note for the record:
a) ‘death’ doesn’t kill you. In fact it seems to closely resemble what we call “life” - though it may include some pre- and post-life sentient existence too, I gather.
b) ‘death’ enables you to suffer. After analysis rather complicated to include here, I closely associate a lack of ability to suffer with a lack of ability to think. So to be ‘not dead’ would require you to be stoned out of your mind, or brain dead or otherwise insensate, or, well, dead dead.
c) There’s apparently something about the child (the Collective) being ‘dead’ that effects its parts somehow. This is not a given - your computer can be effectively dead with most or all of its component parts none the worse off for it. Thus, for us to be effected by the child(Collective)'s death, there must be some mechanism by which it normally actively sustains us but is now not doing so, or some mechanism by which it is now actively hurting us which was not in effect while it was ‘alive’. I don’t have a lot of hope, but I don’t suppose that you can explain how it works and why it is happening? Yes I know you call the effect ‘death’ but that word has been stripped of meaning now.
Now, to be entirely fair to you, this is not the first time I’ve heard skeevy equivocation about the “death” word; it predates you by centuries and is built right into the bible. So it’s not your fault. However, you’re here, and the dudes who played games with the word when writing the bible are not, so there you are.
This doesn’t explain why ‘death’ causes suffering; it explains why Satan didn’t care that the child(Collective) died. Interestingly it doesn’t imply negative intentions on Satan’s part; I don’t care about microbes suffering; he doesn’t care about humans suffering. Seems fair.
And you calling Satan “god” makes me :smack:.
It’s pretty relevent to this thread because it’s what this thread is about! The question is why did God set Jesus to walk himself into a painful and unnecessary death. (And if you think God arranged any other hellish tortures for Jesus, why them too.) Saying “God didn’t just personaly line up Jesus for torture, he personally screws over everyone else too!” doesn’t solve the problem, it makes it worse; God is now doing evil left and right with reckless abandon, which makes his supposed omnibenevolence pretty questionable, I’d say.
And it’s not ironic for me to point to the bible in a discussion about Jesus; I’d also refer to the works of Tolkien if I was talking about hobbits and to the works of Baum when discussing Munchkins. You don’t have to believe in something to discuss it, but you do have to refer to the works in which it appears.
Please don’t tell me you believe in discredited medical myths. Even if you do believe them, don’t tell me you do.
I seriously doubt that the spacefaring nature of the giantic space baby is going to help me understand why God scheduled up Jesus for pain (or why he schedules up anybody else for pain, for that matter). All I get from this is some serious 2001 Space Oddessy vibes, which makes it hard for me to pretend this isn’t all science fiction. So pardon me if I don’t spend too much time focusing on this - if you really think it’s neccesary to understanding the Jesus issue, say how specifically, and I’ll deal with it then.
In Dante, at least, it seems that Jesus, triumphant, roars through the place, throwing down walls and kicking in the gates. Then he rescues the virtuous pagans. I’ve heard others, however, say that Jesus was tortured in hell, just the way anyone else would be.
re Gethsemane, how (traditionally) did the word get out to the writers of the Gospels? Did Jesus sit Peter and Andrew and all down and say, “Okay, you guys, while you couldn’t keep your eyes open, here’s what happened…” Otherwise, it seems like an account of events we haven’t any witness for.
(Or, perhaps, did Jesus tell all about it in the interlude after Easter, when he was on earth once more? “Hey, remember on Passover, when I went into the garden for a while? Well, this is what was going on…”)
It’s a little like the “good Gollum/bad Gollum” scene in Lord of the Rings. How did Frodo (or Sam) know to write about it in the Red Book, given that they were both asleep at the time.
No, I don’t believe anything will be left in that example.
It’s a point of view difference that allows us to make certain predictions based on assumption. That assumption is that our life on earth has a parallel to life in the heavens, from seeing one you can predict what is going on in the other.
P=nP, mentioned above, is a way to convert a difficult, perhaps unsolvable issue into one much easier to solve. I find by converting earthly problems into heavenly problems it is easier to understand and is the reason I convert the collective to the child. Using the term the child means I am working with known behaviors and predictable patterns of a child.
In referring to the child, I am speaking of heavily beings that have parents, a life, friends, family places to live, work and play - as such it is very much a real child having a life we can understand and predict based on our human experience and that can be converted back to the collective to get answers that are otherwise unattainable.
If we just use the term collective that does not give us any insite as to what is happening in the heavens. Nor can we get a understanding as to why the collective is suffering. Very much like P=nP many of your questions can only be answered by this conversion.
When converting from one system to another, it is needed to indicate a conversion takes place (in college I got penalized for not doing so), so the terms the collective and the child make it clear what system I am working in.
And very critically important - that child is the Lord of Lords.
Thinking more on this, jumping back and forth between systems without clarification that I was doing so I believe has been a source of confusion of trying to convey my ideas to others.
I do thank you begbert2for this exchange as that has been brought out.
I think in terms of these conversions so naturally and I have assumed to my error that others also do this, while I have noticed time and time again that they don’t.
I could probably solve that pesky P=nP issue, at least those conversions are my gifting I believe. But more importantly I feel is the ability to communicate ideas with others - as what good is knowing the answer to that issue if I can’t tell anyone
I find myself wondering what distinction you see between this “child” and the Collective as I’ve described it. If you removed the Collective from the child, do you believe something would be left? If so, what?
[/QUOTE]
Thinking about this more, you may end up with a zombified child or one in some sort of vegetative state. Basically a soulless person.
The mechanism of death can be understood looking at the fetal child:
There is a barrier installed between the child’s placenta and the mother’s womb (that is mother earth’s womb)
And the collective:
We have been cut off from the natural world (mother earth), living not in harmony with it - the barrier here is what we call sin. We grab what remains, depleting what should be unlimited resources, and recycling our own garbage to continue to try to develop further or in some cases just survive.
And scriptures:
We were removed from paradise where God (through mother earth’s womb to the child) supplied everything we need to develop and advance. Now with that barrier man must work hard till he dies.
Well, aside from the fact that it’s dead, anyway. Dead children don’t have a life (obviously), or friends or places to live, work, or play; they’re dead.
Unless, of course, you mean something totally different by the word “dead” than the usual definition. In cases like that the ‘parallelism’ thing breaks down; if things are parallel in name only and different in massive functional ways, then there is no real paralleism.
The other part of parallelism that’s dangerous is that seriously, you can’t assume that two things are similar just because you decide to call something by a familiar word. And worse, even if the word is applicable in some contexts, that doesn’t mean it’s safe to extend the analogy to other areas. For example, that newly-born elephant can legitimately be called a child, and in a number of ways can be treated like one and it will react like one, but if you start trying to sign it up for your local pre-school then you’ve just extrapolated too far.
And your baby is the size of a continent and has souls for cells. No way am I going to assume that it has any properties resembling an ordinary child. Especially since you seem to be positing that its mother is a lifeless ball of rock. This is not something I feel I have basis for extrapolating from.
The term ‘Collective’ describes what has been established about this strange entity by your statements about your theology. The term ‘child’ implies piles of other things, most of which would not be true in your theology. (Example: children are smaller than me.) I have no intention of making these leaps of inference; it would be invalid for me to do so. (It would be invalid for you too if it weren’t your own theology you’re talking about, where you’re allowed to invent anything you please for any reason.)
Which means nothing to me.
Seriously - it’s not a defined term. I don’t know what qualifies as a “Lord” in your theology and I don’t know what it means to be a Lord over something in your theology. Or maybe the phrase is just a title and has no literal meaning at all.
Okay, to be a little frank I admit I have suspicions - that this dead child is supposed to be a king over everbody. Or at least, over all us mortals. But we’re just cells to this thing anyway so being lord over us is like being Lord of the Internal Organs. As for the nonmortals, who knows? Is the dead baby lord over Satan? God? Anybody else who’s around? I gather your theology includes angels distinct from mortal souls; I guess they’re probably lorded over too. (Maybe they’re the Lords the dead baby is lording over? Who knows!)
Okay. I’m not sure if this distinction will make a difference regarding the question of the whole death/suffering/Jesus issue, but I’ll try and keep it in mind just in case.
Yeah, see, if this is an example of your parallelism you should chuck it out the window because a placenta serves the vital purpose of nourishing and caring for the infant. It’s not a wall between the child and the mother, it’s a delivery system. It’s a good thing.
That little problem aside, “sin” is an odd name for a barrier. I’ve heard various activities called “sin”, but very few of these activities impede our access of natural resources. If you want to propose that activities like working on the sabbath or worshipping a Mr. Potato Head can cause peak oil, you’re going to have to (you saw this coming) provide an explanation for how this occurs. What mechanism converts actions that annoy god into timber depletion?
If your answer is “The original sin annoyed God and so he pitched humanity out of the Garden of Eden”, that’s fine, though it would limit the word ‘sin’ in this context to meaning ‘god’s reaction to original sin’, removing subsequent sins from the equation. (And personally I don’t like the sound of the Garden much anyway. Too many animals, too much outdoors, and most importantly no internet access.)
Since I have a hike today, I just want to clarify a few things and see if that helps:
In godly speak death is a reversible state, the child is being resurrected, (changing to the collective) the earth will be made new.
For this I see that your view is far too limiting, a child elephant is a child and has a community that it will learn from and in. We don’t register kittens into preschool either, though they are smaller then you, but that doesn’t mean that they don’t have a learning method, just as we do for our children.
Again I am not here to convert you, but to exchange ideas and concepts. You don’t have to accept them, that was never part of the deal.
I do believe scripture and other faiths show us this relationship and parallelism between heaven and earth. Do a google image search for mother earth and you will see many images of a woman with earth as her womb, many of those sites are from various faiths. It is my believe also that all these various faiths have part of the truth and we are made to put the pieces together. Back to scriptures, man was made in the image of God, Jesus stated whatever is bound on earth is bound in heaven, He often talks about the birthing pains of Mother Earth (using the term birthing pains several times when referring to this rock). And there are many more examples, including the new earth that is coming is parallel to us being transfigured into our new body that God will create.
I also want to state we can go the other way to in parallelism, you are made up of a collective - what we call a soul or life force energy, as you travel and meet people, a space fairing society spread out to various new places and meet new races to interact with for good or bad. There is a interchange of population between the 2 races, that is what we call a soul tie (in our realm, though we may be back home and the person we just met is at their home, the person we visited is still with us in mind and thought because in the ‘soul realm’ some of their population is now with you and some of your is with them). And we can get into many dynamic situations such as a bully would be on this ‘soul level’ conquering and enslaving the other races.
Also as support, I have to add that using the above method of shifting the frame of reference to solve problems I have gotten many complements that I have a natural gifting of a councilor and my insight is pretty highly regarded by some. I say this not to convince you, but to give you perhaps more reason as to why I feel this system is valid and why I continue to use it.
We are not cells, but our existence fulfills the role of the cells. In this you are free to travel around the world. If you were just a cell directly there would be no point converting earth to heaven. But you are a member of the collective, as you do something the child’s organ functions. You can analyze a situation on the level of the child, and medical issues of the child, or you can do so on the collective level, what you are doing with your life.
I believe the issue is yes the child is Lord over Satan, and Satan doesn’t like it and is trying to kill the child before the child is old enough to take command. The child is ‘the Father’s’* child, and possibly there is a rivalry, a love triangle between Mother Earth and The Father of the child, and Satan).
*The Father is the same Father Jesus prays to
yes normally there would be no restrictive barrier between the placenta and the womb, but in the child’s case there has been one installed by Satan, our advisory or opposer*.
This and the above show how Satan got his name
In converting heaven to earth the barriers are not one for one, but relate to each other.
This might help, read the short section of the black horse in Revelations. That I believe is what is going on in the heavens, the conversion would be Black= color of oil, Scales = the direct equating of the price of food to that of oil, wine and oil = ethanol and bio-diesle (crop products that will not be touched - in other words farmers will plant these fuel crops, they will not be growing food)
btw the paradise of God is much more advanced then anything you experienced
When one takes into consideration that all this was written, taught, thought, and said by Human’s who decided what God does,did,said, or inspired it can be taken with a grain of salt, just as one can take Kanicbird’s theology, it suits him, so for him it makes sense, to many others it doesn’t. Belief is in the mind of the believer and whomever, or what ever, they choose to believe.
I can’t cite it, either, but other than the whole contract with Satan thing he said at first, which contradicts the rest of what he said, the rest of that particular post is pretty basic Christian theology, as far as I know. I’ve been taught all my life that Jesus literally took on the sins of the world. In the Father’s eyes, he actually was guilty and deserved death. Jesus wasn’t a scapegoat but a literal substitute.
“Belief is in the mind of the believer”-sounds like a fortune cookie or bumper sticker and does nothing to further the discussion, in my opinion. Of course people believe what they believe-what matters is the internal and external consistency of said beliefs.
This is the part I always questioned when I was Christian.
Was it that Jesus took on the sins of the world, up to the point that he was crucified, or for all time?
And if- for the latter, could that explain why many people have no real incentive to stop “sinning,” in that Jesus already foots the bill?
I don’t fault a person for believing something they were taught,read or thought,that is their right, and as long as it doesn’t harm others and it helps them to have a better life so be it…but it doesn’t necessarily mean it is true, but it is from a human and not from a God. Some beliefs are helpful, some are not. Belief is a personal thing. And maybe one in several million (or more) fortune cookies hit it right…even if it is a coincidence.
It does suit me. My beliefs may not work on a scientific level, but have proven themselves to me on a humanistic level. On that I have gotten some very positive feedback from friends and acquaintances especially in giving input into various life issues. And it does also help my beliefs that I do see these conversion of frames of reference (such as converting what is on earth to what is happening in the heavens) in scripture, a book that I am very well acquainted with as well as in many other myths from differing faiths.
I say that not to convert anyone, but to give a reason as to why I do hold to my beliefs - the reason is very simple - they work in the real world, not just a warm and fuzzy feeling that church goers claim, but in healing lives and hearts anywhere and anytime. You may be able to cite studies that show certain aspects are unprovable, but time and time again being able to convert a complex humanistic problem to another system (such as soul ties, demonic/angelic, etc.) and a solution or at least analysis and better understanding of the situation occurs.
That’s why science was invented. Because individual humans working from memory without any level of rigor in their musings can convince themselves that any sort of nonsense is true.
Some people convince themselves they’re psychic. They aren’t, they just don’t think about all the times they’re wrong.
If you’re having real effects, science can track them. I think if you did, you’d find that the times your beliefs seem to work, it is no better than chance, and that you rationalize away the failures, as “God’s will” or for-the-best in some way you’re unaware of. You can claim that you only throw coins for a heads result if you say that the tails results are actually heads results, in a way that God in his wisdom sees that we cannot.
That sentence should go down in history as a first rate example of jibba-jabba.
You are a human,and your friends are also humans, so it is just one human believing in another. Belief is just that…Belief, and it is easy to over look or think about anything differently. I just cannot accept a cruel, uncaring being as an all knowing all loving being. Perhaps you don’t see things that way,or don’t wish to, and that is your right. I don’t think many are going to worry about your converting them, unless they don’t care about the truth.
