Discussion:
The Incarnation of Satan - Part I
(too old to reply)
Remnant
2006-11-27 01:45:05 UTC
Permalink
Full message: http://www.omegaministry.org/OT_November_2006_1.html

Satan's Looking for a Body

The word incarnate means to enflesh; to put something in flesh that was not
previously in that form. Jesus Christ was a spirit being without a physical
body before he was put in flesh. He came from the spirit world into the
physical world to inhabit a physical body; He was incarnate.

Satan also is looking to be incarnate. He wants to get inside of a physical
body so that he can be worshipped and receive all of the adulation and
reverence due to a god on the physical plain. He has been waiting on a man
who will actually be the epitome of himself, so that he may indwell him: one
who is proud, self-absorbed, etc. After all, no two beings can walk together
unless they are agreed. I believe that the Antichrist is alive and well;
being shaped, forged, and prepared for his time of manifestation on earth.

Down through time we have seen forerunners of this antichrist spirit. I John
2:18 states, "Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard
that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we
know that it is the last time." The antichrist is the antithesis of Jesus
Christ. Christ gave himself for the world. The antichrist can only be
something at the expense of everyone else, and this trait can be seen in all
who carry that spirit. They seek to dominate others and be the object of
their worship.

There have been many illustrations of this spirit throughout time. However,
there is a difference between having the antichrist spirit and being the
antichrist. There will be a literal antichrist, representing the incarnation
of Satan in man. The one who I believe came closest to this in history is
Hitler. Hitler referred to his regime as the Third Reich, which means the
third "empire" in German. So, logically thinking, if his was the third
empire, then there must have been a first and second empire. These may be
identified by looking back at history.

Leading Up to the Fourth Reich

The first Reich was the Holy Roman Empire, and there are facts about this
empire that you might not realize until you research it. For example, the
Holy Roman Empire was not centrally focused in Rome nor was it centered
under an Italian Caesar. The center of that empire was in Germany, and the
full name for it was the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. This empire
began when Charlemagne (Charles the Great) was crowned emperor by Pope Leo
III in Rome and spanned from about 800 - 1806.

The Encyclopedia Britannica says:
"Traditionally believed to have been established by Charlemagne, who was
crowned emperor by Pope Leo III in 800, the empire lasted until the
renunciation of the imperial title by Francis II in 1806. The reign of the
German Otto I (the Great; r. 962-973), who revived the imperial title after
Carolingian decline, is also sometimes regarded as the beginning of the
empire. The name Holy Roman Empire (not adopted until the reign of Frederick
I Barbarossa) reflected Charlemagne's claim that his empire was the
successor to the Roman Empire and that this temporal power was augmented by
his status as God's principal vicar in the temporal realm (parallel to the
pope's in the spiritual realm). These were successive dynasties of German
kings from the mid 10th century until the abolition of the empire."

The title of Holy Roman Emperor was born from successive dynasties of German
kings. One common thread among these emperors is that they gave their
allegiance to the Catholic church and were in fact set up by that church to
be secular arms of the church's authority. Before being crowed emperor by
the Pope, these German emperors were often referred to as the "King of the
Romans"; this term was also used to refer to the emperor's heir designate.
It was in fact the King of the Romans who killed Jesus. Remember, before
Jesus was sentenced to death, the Jews cried, "We have no king but Caesar."
(John 19:15) Jesus was killed under Roman rulership and He is coming back to
judge the Romans.

Although originally allied with the papacy, the Holy Roman empire eventually
got into a struggle with the Pope over the leadership of Christian Europe.
The 17th century reformation furthered this schism as some German princes
aligned themselves with the Protestants against the Catholic Emperor. The
climax to this turmoil was the Thirty Years War, which devastated Germany
and left the Emperor with nominal authority over a loose collection of semi-
independent Germanic states. The second Reich is marked by the proclamation
of Wilhelm I of Prussia as emperor of Germany. It lasted from (1870 - 1919).

Baptized and raised a Roman Catholic, Hitler came to power in 1921 as the
Fuhrer of Germany's National Socialist Party. Hitler primary political
aspiration was the establishment of the Roman Empire's third Reich. Hitler
was really another Roman Emperor. If you trace the facts, the Germans -
under Hitler's regime - were marching on Rome. He had a pact with Mussolini,
but his objective was to become Caesar in Rome and thereby rule the world.


The Beast of Iron

Throughout history, the Roman empire has ebbed and flowed in power. It is
the legs of iron seen by Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel Chapter 2; the beast which
was strong as iron in the last days vision mentioned in Daniel Chapter 7. We
live under the auspices of a hidden Roman empire even now. It has never been
done away with and now we are headed towards the fourth Reich, which I
personally believe will be the reign of the Antichrist. We are not told his
name, what he will look like, or where he will come from. However if history
is any indicator, he may be of German descent. I am speaking of his
bloodline, not necessarily the country he will be from. In the fourth Reich,
there will be a global harlot church crowning a master of the global
government.
Americans must wake up out of a deep sleep. For example, we did not invade
Iraq to defend democracy. They try to brainwash our soldiers into believing
that we are fighting to defend God, Mom, apple pie, hot dogs, and baseball.
We march over there - flags raised - to free the Iraqis from tyrannical
oppression. This could not be further from the truth. There are tyrants all
over the world. Why would we go halfway around the world to oppose tyranny
when Castro is sitting 90 miles off of our coast in Cuba? The United States
is in Iraq because we need a military presence dispatched around the globe
to facilitate control and enforce the dictates of the new world order.

Wars are no longer fought based on the interests of one particular country,
but on the desires of the Roman Empire. Standing armies are no longer
dedicated to the countries they represent, but are global forces being
manipulated by master chess players whom we don't see. Presidents, Prime
Ministers, etc. these are just figureheads and are of no consequence. You
may have cast your ballot, but who counts the votes? You saw how they put a
stop to counting votes down in Florida in the 2000 election and simply
dictated who won when it got too close. They must attempt to maintain
control so that things do not get out of hand. Every so often, they take a
pulse on society to see just how much influence they exert. A good example
of this was the "War of the Worlds" radio broadcast in 1938 where they
simulated a Martian invasion which confused and scared many, even causing
some to commit suicide. Another great example? 9-11.

A Great Deception

Terrorists were allowed to crash planes into the Twin Towers and the
Pentagon so that we would have an excuse to invade Iraq. Those who believe
the Mickey Mouse terrorists acted alone are deceived; too many balls had to
be dropped for this to happen. How many planes were off course during that
day? Four. How many planes did we intercept or stop? Zero. In spite of the
fact that there is an air defense system in this country that continuously
monitors the airways.
"The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) is a bi-national
United States and Canadian organization charged with the missions of
aerospace warning and aerospace control for North America. Aerospace warning
includes the monitoring of man- made objects in space, and the detection,
validation, and warning of attack against North America whether by aircraft,
missiles, or space vehicles, utilizing mutual support arrangements with
other commands. Aerospace control includes ensuring air sovereignty and air
defense of the airspace of Canada and the United States."
http://wwww.norad.mil/about_us.htm

The charter of this organization is to ensure air sovereignty and defense,
yet in this case they failed in 3 separate attacks. Before a plane ever
takes off the ground it has to file a flight plan. Resources are set-up
throughout this country - from local air traffic control up to NORAD - to
allow for immediate detection and response when a plane is off course. In
such case, there are a number of options including contacting the pilots,
scrambling the controls, using jets to redirect the plane, and even shooting
down the threat. Yet we could not stop 1 of those planes that day? In truth,
the U.S. government needed a trigger to affect the minds of Americans which
would lower resistance to the idea of invading Iraq.

Some might say that these comments are unpatriotic, but since when did
Christianity become defined by patriotism? A German in 1940 following Hitler
was a good patriot; he was serving his country and his government
faithfully. People have been brainwashed to believe that this is a Christian
country and their eyes well with tears when they see the flag. Why? Where in
the Bible does it instruct us to be so caught up in our countries? I am not
condoning lawlessness; I am asking you to be thoughtful about what your
allegiance should be if your country becomes unrighteous? What if the rule
of law (or republic) to which you pledge loyalty legalizes the wholesale
murder of over 1 million babies a year? This is not a nation under God. Yet
saying these things marks me as an enemy of the state. If the system stood
against what was wrong, then I could stand with it. Those who believe that
allegiance to this country is their Christian duty have fallen prey to the
lying, anti-christ spirit. Yes, we should pray for our country, for our
leadership, but our allegiance must be to God first, foremost, and
exclusively.

Of course, God is ultimately in control of all - directing things as He sees
fit. Whether you are dealing with the Republican and Democratic party, both
are evil. Yet, one may move things in a particular direction faster than the
other. So if God wants to slow down the end time sequences, He will let one
person win and if He wants to speed things up, He may let another win. The
world is headed in the same direction and towards the same end no matter who
gets in office. In the meantime, the mystery of iniquity continues to work
leading up to the time when that "Wicked" is revealed.
B.G. Kent
2006-11-28 05:39:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Remnant
Satan also is looking to be incarnate. He wants to get inside of a physical
body so that he can be worshipped and receive all of the adulation and
B - *clears throat* why? and not being a friend to Satan...how would you
know?

Blessings
Bren
Remnant
2006-11-30 02:00:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by B.G. Kent
Post by Remnant
Satan also is looking to be incarnate. He wants to get inside of a physical
body so that he can be worshipped and receive all of the adulation and
B - *clears throat* why? and not being a friend to Satan...how would you
know?
Blessings
Bren
Perhaps another appropriate question is, "Why don't you know?"
B.G. Kent
2006-12-01 03:07:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Remnant
Perhaps another appropriate question is, "Why don't you know?"
B - You first! Please enlighten me on this concept.

Bren
Remnant
2006-12-05 02:48:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by B.G. Kent
Post by Remnant
Perhaps another appropriate question is, "Why don't you know?"
B - You first! Please enlighten me on this concept.
Sure. Because I know the Lord and He has given me His Spirit to guide me.
This includes opening my eyes to His will for my life as well as giving me
insight into the plans of His enemy so that I will not be caught unawares,
as any loving Father would do.

Now, why don't you know?
Post by B.G. Kent
Bren
B.G. Kent
2006-12-06 04:17:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Remnant
Post by B.G. Kent
Post by Remnant
Perhaps another appropriate question is, "Why don't you know?"
B - You first! Please enlighten me on this concept.
Sure. Because I know the Lord and He has given me His Spirit to guide me.
This includes opening my eyes to His will for my life as well as giving me
insight into the plans of His enemy so that I will not be caught unawares,
as any loving Father would do.
B - How do you know that you know?

Bren
Remnant
2006-12-08 01:07:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by B.G. Kent
Post by Remnant
Post by B.G. Kent
Post by Remnant
Perhaps another appropriate question is, "Why don't you know?"
B - You first! Please enlighten me on this concept.
Sure. Because I know the Lord and He has given me His Spirit to guide me.
This includes opening my eyes to His will for my life as well as giving me
insight into the plans of His enemy so that I will not be caught
unawares,
as any loving Father would do.
B - How do you know that you know?
Because I know Him.

Have you ever met your mother? How do you know you have met her?
B.G. Kent
2006-12-09 02:29:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Remnant
Post by B.G. Kent
Post by Remnant
Sure. Because I know the Lord and He has given me His Spirit to guide me.
This includes opening my eyes to His will for my life as well as giving me
insight into the plans of His enemy so that I will not be caught
unawares,
as any loving Father would do.
B - How do you know that you know?
Because I know Him.
Have you ever met your mother? How do you know you have met her?
B - I see her in the flesh...I can poke her and she will go "ow"....(I
wouldn't really poke mum....but you get my point) I have a birth
certificate.....I have plenty of pictures of her holding me at just days
old....and ontop of that....we look very similar. NOw that is my proof. I
believe that I know God too however I don't say that I do..but that I
believe that I do. One is objective to a degree....the other subjective.
Subjectivity is exactly your experience to yourself...objectivity is
something everyone else could see as well....EVERYONE. When an objective
statement is made....for example...if I was to say...God hates those with
extra digits because God has told me this and it is true and "he" wants us
to destroy those with said extra digits....people would invariably say,
"prove it." I would also surmise that I am trying to speak for God and
direct others to Gods way...but would I be doing this really? or is it my
own subjective experience? if so...should I not add "in my experience" or
"in my opinion" ? Is this not respectful?

That is what I believe.

Bren

*************************************************
Let love guide you in all you do.

*************************************************
Remnant
2006-12-11 02:49:57 UTC
Permalink
"B.G. Kent" <***@victoria.tc.ca> wrote in message news:Bcpeh.149$***@trnddc03...
<snip>
Post by B.G. Kent
Post by Remnant
Because I know Him.
Have you ever met your mother? How do you know you have met her?
B - I see her in the flesh...I can poke her and she will go "ow"....(I
wouldn't really poke mum....but you get my point)
That is good to know. I waa starting to worry. :-)
Post by B.G. Kent
I have a birth
certificate.....I have plenty of pictures of her holding me at just days
old....and ontop of that....we look very similar. NOw that is my proof.
So, on a high level, you can interact with her. You have evidence of her
being involved throughout your life. You bear her image. The same can be
said of God.

I don't think you are saying that unless you can poke God, He doesn't exist
(and I wouldn't poke God either LOL). So, I won't dwell on the types of
interactions. Suffice it to say that The evidence of knowing God would be
primarily spiritual - as He is Spirit.
Post by B.G. Kent
I
believe that I know God too however I don't say that I do..but that I
believe that I do.
I completely understand. I used to feel the same way. I didn't necessarily
understand God, but I believed that there was a God. And the God I imagined
knew me and I knew Him. Did I sincerely desire to know Him? Yes. But
quite honestly, the way I imagined Him to be was not necessarily who He
really is. I had no way of knowing this of course until I actually met Him.
Post by B.G. Kent
One is objective to a degree....the other subjective.
Subjectivity is exactly your experience to yourself...objectivity is
something everyone else could see as well....EVERYONE.
Not exactly, although I follow what you are saying.

The operative word here is "could." Everyone certainly "can" know God...and
"seeing" is not the only form of evidence that something/someone exists.

Let's say that there is something that everyone "could" see, i.e. the sun.
It is an objective reality equally available to all. But, for whatever
reason, some don't see, maybe they are physically blind. The some that
cannot see the sun do not make this objective truth subjective. The reason
for them not seeing is not found in the sun, but in their own limitations of
sight. They might even be able to feel the heat radiating from the sun an
dknow that something is causing this, something exists to provide this
warmth. But they will not be able to point at something and say, "That is
the sun and it is what is generating heat." Bottom line, any person's
failure to see an objective truth does not make that truth subjective.
Post by B.G. Kent
When an objective
statement is made....for example...if I was to say...God hates those with
extra digits because God has told me this and it is true and "he" wants us
to destroy those with said extra digits....people would invariably say,
"prove it."
What if you told me that your mother likes chocolate covered strawberries.
How do I know this is true? What gives you the authority to communicate
what your mom likes? Unless I know your mother for myself, or unless I put
faith in the belief that you know your mother, how would you prove that to
me? Even if I just trust that you know her, that would not be proof. It
would only be proof if I know it for myself.

More to the point, if you told me that your mom likes chocolate covered
strawberries and I didn't believe you, would you feel compelled to prove
that to me?
Post by B.G. Kent
I would also surmise that I am trying to speak for God and
direct others to Gods way...but would I be doing this really? or is it my
own subjective experience? if so...should I not add "in my experience" or
"in my opinion" ? Is this not respectful?
Respectful? I don't know. But it could be untrue.

This gets back to my question above. What gives you the authority to say
what your mom likes? Let's say you are in a restaurant and your mom is in
the bathroom when the waiter comes. He asks for the drink orders and you
place the drink order for yourself and your mom. The only way you are able
to do that is if you know her well enough to know her preferences.

Better yet, let's say that before your mom goes to the bathroom, she tells
you, "Dear, order me a Sprite please when the waiter comes." The waiter
comes. You order your tea and your mom's Sprite. However, the waiter
refuses to take the Sprite order because he has not heard directly from your
mom that this is what she wants. You tell Him that she has told you she
wants Sprite, but he tells you to prove it. How do you prove it? How do
you prove that she has in fact told you this?

Further, would it be respectful for you to add your own experience and
opinions to what your mom said? Would it be resectful after your mom tells
you to order a Sprite to tell the waiter, "My mom said she wanted a Sprite,
but in my experience she has somtimes drank coffee on Satrudays as well.
So, in my opinion, she would want a coffee." Is this being respectful to
your mom's wishes or is it simply perverting what she said?

My point? If God exists, then it is possible to interact with Him, to know
Him. If God is equally available to all and is an objective truth in life,
then the inability for some to know Him does not make that truth subjective.
If one knows Him, then one can easily communicate what He is like, one can
represent Him simply because one knows Him well enough to do that. Lastly,
changing what He says in an attempt to reflect or own experiences or
opinions is not respectful, it is simply a perversin of what He says.

It seems that our entire dialogue then hinges on whether God is real.
Post by B.G. Kent
That is what I believe.
I understand, and thank you for sharing that with me.

Have a wonderful day
Post by B.G. Kent
Bren
*************************************************
Let love guide you in all you do.
*************************************************
B.G. Kent
2006-12-12 04:14:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Remnant
<snip>
Post by B.G. Kent
Post by Remnant
Because I know Him.
Have you ever met your mother? How do you know you have met her?
B - I see her in the flesh...I can poke her and she will go "ow"....(I
wouldn't really poke mum....but you get my point)
That is good to know. I waa starting to worry. :-)
B - "oh ye of little faith" ;)
Post by Remnant
Let's say that there is something that everyone "could" see, i.e. the sun.
It is an objective reality equally available to all. But, for whatever
reason, some don't see, maybe they are physically blind.
B - How do we know that it is objective reality? I mean..I believe there
is a sun..I also believe there is a God...but how do I make this reality
for others? it all comes down to their prerequisites for "proof"
again....a subjective thing. For a blind man....the sun may not exist for
him. Is he correct? is he seeing the truth and are we seeing a mass
hallucination? I don't think so....obviously..but you see my point I hope?
are we the man dreaming of the butterfly or the butterfly dreaming of the
man? We set up certain rules..each of us...to state an objective reality.
No matter how many others band together and say "this is"...you can not
accept it unless it meets your prerequisite for what is objectivity. That
may sound like extreme subjectivity...but I very much like to push the
"what if" factor. I personally think it is disrespectful to say to another
person "God wants you to do ______" when most if not all people cannot
prove that a being such as God even exists. What happens is that for many
of us...we hear that...and we immediately set up an argument in our
minds...
"no he/she doesn't!" "he's reading the Bible wrongly" "he's
misinterpreted" "he is using THAT Bible and not mine!" or "he is using the
Bible whilst I use the Nag Hammadi and the Bible" etc....
It does nothing to show respect that "in my opinion" or "what I believe"
or "what I think" does. Those prefaces tend to show real
humility...respect for others very intimate experiences with or without
God (if one believes one can be sans God).
I guess I tend to see it as the difference between swinging your fists in
the air as you see fit....and making those fists hit another. I have no
problem whatsoever with individual beliefs...ANY..as long as they are used
subjectively and not objectively.
For some reason people take my asking for proof as an argument over
religious content and not (what it is for in truth)an asking of them to
speak for themselves. Yes I sometimes delve into the religious
questions...but I truly have no problem with how those persons
believe...as long as they don't speak for God.
Post by Remnant
the sun and it is what is generating heat." Bottom line, any person's
failure to see an objective truth does not make that truth subjective.
B - again...what is objective truth? what your prerequisite it? or mine?
is not objective truth still based on subjective prerequisites? If we all
see the sun...does that mean that it exists? or does it mean that we all
have a collective hallucination going on? :) Yes I know how over the top
that sounds...but I like to explore all the ways one can look at
something.
Post by Remnant
What if you told me that your mother likes chocolate covered strawberries.
How do I know this is true? What gives you the authority to communicate
what your mom likes? Unless I know your mother for myself, or unless I put
faith in the belief that you know your mother, how would you prove that to
me? Even if I just trust that you know her, that would not be proof. It
would only be proof if I know it for myself.
B - That's right. I can only say "in my experience" when you get down to
it at its core level..however the concept of God is very murky for many
many many people and it not on the same prerequisite for objectivity as my
mum existing went. If I brought you to my mum and had her say that she
loved strawberries covered in chocolate...you would probably agree that my
mother loves these things..but If I brought you for example to perhaps a
tree and said "this is God". Would that be truth to you even if it might
or might not be truth to another? Like I said..we all have our own
prerequisites for objective proof. That being said...a person saying "God
does this" does not mean that God actually does!
Post by Remnant
My point? If God exists, then it is possible to interact with Him, to know
Him. If God is equally available to all and is an objective truth in life,
It seems that our entire dialogue then hinges on whether God is real.
Post by B.G. Kent
That is what I believe.
I understand, and thank you for sharing that with me.
Have a wonderful day
B - You've just proven my point...or I've proven yours...both equal and
making sense I figure. I do believe in God..just incase you're
wondering...and I don't think people CAN prove Gods existance to
everyone...but I ask only to make them think perhaps at what they are
trying to do...convincing others? helping others? getting others to think
their way to feel less alone? convince themselves? a worry? a need to help
others?

You have a wonderful day too...it's windy this morning and overcast..but
that's winter in the Pacific Northwest.

Blessings
Bren
Remnant
2006-12-13 04:43:30 UTC
Permalink
<snip>
Post by B.G. Kent
B - How do we know that it is objective reality? I mean..I believe there
is a sun..I also believe there is a God...but how do I make this reality
for others?
How do we know that an objective reality exists? Well, how are you defining
this phrase?

ob jec tive (b-jktv)
adj.
1. Of or having to do with a material object.
2. Having actual existence or reality.
3.
a. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See
Synonyms at fair1.
b. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective
appraisal.
4. Medicine Indicating a symptom or condition perceived as a sign of disease
by someone other than the person affected.
5. Grammar
a. Of, relating to, or being the case of a noun or pronoun that serves as
the object of a verb.
b. Of or relating to a noun or pronoun used in this case.
n.
1. Something that actually exists.
2. Something worked toward or striven for; a goal. See Synonyms at
intention.
3. Grammar
a. The objective case.
b. A noun or pronoun in the objective case.
4. The lens or lens system in a microscope or other optical instrument that
first receives light rays from the object and forms the image. Also called
object glass, objective lens, object lens.

re al i ty (r-l-t)
n. pl. re al i ties
1. The quality or state of being actual or true.
2. One, such as a person, an entity, or an event, that is actual: "the
weight of history and political realities" Benno C. Schmidt, Jr.
3. The totality of all things possessing actuality, existence, or
essence.
4. That which exists objectively and in fact: Your observations do not
seem to be about reality.


Does the sun actually exist? Yes.

I would not say that it is your job to make this reality obvious to others.
Post by B.G. Kent
it all comes down to their prerequisites for "proof"
again....a subjective thing. For a blind man....the sun may not exist for
him. Is he correct? is he seeing the truth and are we seeing a mass
hallucination? I don't think so....obviously..but you see my point I
hope?>
are we the man dreaming of the butterfly or the butterfly dreaming of the
man?
I hope I don't. If you do not believe that you can accept as real or true
things that exist (because it could be a figment of your imagination), then
how do you live? How do you trust any decision you make? If you are not
sure that food is real, then why do you eat? If you are not sure that water
is real, then why do you drink? If it is possible that clothes or even your
own body is a hallucination, then do you walk around nude?

If you really applied these principles to other aspects in your life (and I
certainly believe that a person could), you would be a vegetable. Neither
does it seem logical that you would apply such standards towards other
truths in your life. Why are you even engaging in this conversation? How
do you know that I am a real person and not just a figment of your
imagination? You could just be talking to yourself? Yet, you are engaged
in this conversation, so at some level (even if just subconsciously) you
have accepted that I am real...and you didn't ask me for proof of my
existence at any time.

I am not trying to be funny here. I am only saying that you probably place
more trust in what is real than you are suggesting here. It is just that
when it comes to God, people can sometimes lean towards the esoteric. So, I
think if you reflect honestly here, you will see that the questions you ask
above you do not apply to other truths in your life. And yet God is just as
reasl as any og these things, even more so.
Post by B.G. Kent
We set up certain rules..each of us...to state an objective reality.
No matter how many others band together and say "this is"...you can not
accept it unless it meets your prerequisite for what is objectivity.
Do we really? I don't think so. It may be helpful for us to look again at
the definition of the word objective because an objective truth is not
subject to the the perceptions of those viewing the truth. It stands on its
own; that's why it is objective.
Post by B.G. Kent
That
may sound like extreme subjectivity...but I very much like to push the
"what if" factor.
No problem with that, but I am glad you noticed that you are defining
subjectivity and not objevtivity. Further, if this is what you truly
believe, then do you apply this thinking towards other truths in your life?
I doubt it or as stated before, you would be a vegetable.

In fact, I suggest that while in life you operate on one paradigm, when it
somes to God (as least in this conversation) you set up a set of
impossibilities where everything is subjective and nothing is real. You
cannot honestly expect me to believe that you apply this same line of
thinking to eating, drinking, walking, talking etc. Again, being in a place
where nothing truly exists but you only interact with figments of your
imagination would be the defnition of insanity. Yet you accepted me as real
immediately, so this is how I know that you are not applying that same high
standard of "proof" as you state should be applied to God.
Post by B.G. Kent
I personally think it is disrespectful to say to another
person "God wants you to do ______" when most if not all people cannot
prove that a being such as God even exists.
This is the crux of the issue. When you question whether God is an
objective reality, you are really questioning whether He is real. Now,
anyone certainly has the right to doubt that God exists. However, in terms
of this conversation I just want you to see that when it comes to God you
are setting up an impossible construct of "proof" where nothing is real that
you do not apply to other "realities" in your life. Unless you equally
question the existence of everything else (and if you did, you would not
eat, clothe yourself, talk, move, etc.) then you are creating your own
roadblocks to God for your own reasons.

Further, it would be disrespectful to say to another "God wants you yo
do..." if you have not heard from God that such is the case. However, when
one communicates what God in fact has said, that merely makes you an
effective communicator.
Post by B.G. Kent
What happens is that for many
of us...we hear that...and we immediately set up an argument in our
minds...
That is exactly my point. When one proclaims to represent God, you seem to
set-up an argument in your own mind; an argument that creates impossible
realities that are not applied to any other area of your life.

The natural question then would be why?
Post by B.G. Kent
"no he/she doesn't!" "he's reading the Bible wrongly" "he's
misinterpreted" "he is using THAT Bible and not mine!" or "he is using the
Bible whilst I use the Nag Hammadi and the Bible" etc....
It does nothing to show respect that "in my opinion" or "what I believe"
or "what I think" does.
If in fact what is being communication is from God, then adding "what I
believe" or "in my opinion" just turns that truth into a lie. It is not
about being respectful, it is about being truthful.
Post by B.G. Kent
Those prefaces tend to show real
humility...respect for others very intimate experiences with or without
God (if one believes one can be sans God).
So, you don't believe there is such a thing as a lie? If I were to say that
your mother is a mass murderer who is in jail for the rest of her life,
would you respect that as my opinion? If I were to go to your place of work
and start telling people that you are embezelling funds, would you be humble
enough to permit my belief?

One key point you are missing is that I am not required to have my
communications reflect your experiences. You are not required to have your
interactions reflect my experiences. And neither is God.

It is not an act of humility to lie about God or to deny what He has said.

Again, I think you are setting up a standard you do not apply anywhere else.
Do you apply this principle to all other areas of your life? No. Do you
say "Hi, this is Sally and I believe she is my mother. Can you give me a
glass of what I believe is water? Would you like to come over to what is in
my opinion my house? I looked at this quarter's numbers Mr. Wilson and in
my opinion we were proftibale." You might in fact lose your job with that
type of statement. LOL They will want you to evaluate the sales and come
back with a yeah or nay; were the numbers met or not? It is not something
that is subject to your opinion, it simply is.

There are some things you accept as real, as objective, as true and you do
not feel led to qualify these with statements such as "in my opinion."
Again, I feel that this standard is yet another way to construct impossibile
realities about God that you would not apply elsewhere.
Post by B.G. Kent
I guess I tend to see it as the difference between swinging your fists in
the air as you see fit....and making those fists hit another. I have no
problem whatsoever with individual beliefs...ANY..as long as they are used
subjectively and not objectively.
Precisely. So to do so, you set up impossible constructs about God that are
proven to be invalid based on the way you interact in every other way of
life.

Yet the fact that you want to deny an objective truth about God does not
erase the fact that He does exist. It merely means that you reject Him.
You can say there is no sun, but that does not mean the sun isn't there.
Post by B.G. Kent
For some reason people take my asking for proof as an argument over
religious content and not (what it is for in truth)an asking of them to
speak for themselves.
Yes, I certainly do speak for myself. Why? Because I am real. I have a
personality. I have likes and dislikes. I have something I want to
communicate to others about myself.

I will also continue to speak for God. Why? Because He is real. He has a
personality. He has likes and dislikes. He wants to communicate to others
about Himself.
Post by B.G. Kent
Yes I sometimes delve into the religious
questions...but I truly have no problem with how those persons
believe...as long as they don't speak for God.
Then I am afraid that you will have a problem with me. I will speak for
God, with no regrets. I will speak His word and when He gives me a specific
message to communicate, I will do so. Further, in doing so, I will let it
be known that "thus saith the Lord" so that I do not pervert the truth of
what He has said.
Post by B.G. Kent
Post by Remnant
the sun and it is what is generating heat." Bottom line, any person's
failure to see an objective truth does not make that truth subjective.
B - again...what is objective truth? what your prerequisite it? or mine?
is not objective truth still based on subjective prerequisites?
No. Those are contrasting concepts, not synonyms. No objective truth is
based on a subjective reality.
Post by B.G. Kent
If we all
see the sun...does that mean that it exists? or does it mean that we all
have a collective hallucination going on? :) Yes I know how over the top
that sounds...
It doesn't sound over the top, it just sounds like someone who has no
current interest in knowing God. Therefore, it becomes easier to create an
environemnt whereby God cannot exist objectively. That is fine. People
have every right not to submit to God. Just don't say that it is because
the standard of proof isn't high enough because by your own life, you
demonstrate that such standards are false.
Post by B.G. Kent
but I like to explore all the ways one can look at
something.
Post by Remnant
What if you told me that your mother likes chocolate covered
strawberries.
How do I know this is true? What gives you the authority to communicate
what your mom likes? Unless I know your mother for myself, or unless I
put
faith in the belief that you know your mother, how would you prove that
to
me? Even if I just trust that you know her, that would not be proof.
It
would only be proof if I know it for myself.
B - That's right. I can only say "in my experience" when you get down to
it at its core level..however the concept of God is very murky for many
many many people and it not on the same prerequisite for objectivity as my
mum existing went.
Exactly. You seem to be using one paradigm for other areas of life but
attribute a different paradigm (where nothing is real) for God.
Post by B.G. Kent
If I brought you to my mum and had her say that she
loved strawberries covered in chocolate...you would probably agree that my
mother loves these things..
And likewise, if God came to me and told me what He liked, I could say that
He likes such things.
Post by B.G. Kent
but If I brought you for example to perhaps a
tree and said "this is God". Would that be truth to you even if it might
or might not be truth to another? Like I said..we all have our own
prerequisites for objective proof.
Again, that the definition of something subjective, not objective.
Post by B.G. Kent
That being said...a person saying "God
does this" does not mean that God actually does!
You are right...unless the person actually knows God.
Post by B.G. Kent
Post by Remnant
My point? If God exists, then it is possible to interact with Him, to
know
Him. If God is equally available to all and is an objective truth in
life,
It seems that our entire dialogue then hinges on whether God is real.
Post by B.G. Kent
That is what I believe.
I understand, and thank you for sharing that with me.
Have a wonderful day
B - You've just proven my point...or I've proven yours...both equal and
making sense I figure. I do believe in God..just incase you're
wondering...and I don't think people CAN prove Gods existance to
everyone...
Yet God's existence is not deendent upon the ability for it to be proven.
He simply exists, just as we exist. For that matter, you cannot prove that
I exist, yet that hasn't stopped you from engaging in the conversation.
Further, if you were to "quote" me directly in terms of what has been
communicated here, by your own definition you could only say "In my opinion
Remnant said".

Have you noticed what each of these posts begin with?

"B.G. Kent" <***@victoria.tc.ca> wrote in message...

Remnant wrote...

Based on your standards above, this is disrespectful. The posts should
really say, "In our opinion, B.G.Kent wrote..."

How is it that they can state unequivocally what you wrote? How can they
state this as fact? The simple truth is that there are truths that are
objective. The record of what I have written is available for all to see.
While the meaning of what was written may be subjective, the text of what
was written is not; it is objective. It exists and can be known by all.
Post by B.G. Kent
but I ask only to make them think perhaps at what they are
trying to do...convincing others? helping others? getting others to think
their way to feel less alone? convince themselves? a worry? a need to help
others?
Trying to do? For me I am not trying to do anything. I care not what
others believe. But God has certain things He wants to communicate and I am
happy to be a vessel for that.
Post by B.G. Kent
You have a wonderful day too...it's windy this morning and overcast..but
that's winter in the Pacific Northwest.
I guess that would be true. Probably beautiful though! Haven't seen the
weather here yet, but it has been chilly.

Enjoy your day!
Post by B.G. Kent
Blessings
Bren
B.G. Kent
2006-12-14 04:01:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Remnant
<snip>
Post by B.G. Kent
B - How do we know that it is objective reality? I mean..I believe there
is a sun..I also believe there is a God...but how do I make this reality
for others?
How do we know that an objective reality exists? Well, how are you defining
this phrase?
B - Point taken well.
Post by Remnant
truths in your life. Why are you even engaging in this conversation? How
do you know that I am a real person and not just a figment of your
imagination? You could just be talking to yourself? Yet, you are engaged
B - even I have my limits.
Post by Remnant
In fact, I suggest that while in life you operate on one paradigm, when it
somes to God (as least in this conversation) you set up a set of
impossibilities where everything is subjective and nothing is real. You
cannot honestly expect me to believe that you apply this same line of
B - That's close. I don't actually believe that God is unreal....but as
far as other things are concerned....I can put a set of parameters to it
and say "yes this exists" where I only go on faith with God and a feeling.
The parameters of what I set for other things....I don't set with
God...however I don't say in the same construct ...here is an apple..and
here is God. What would we all think God is to be? a white old man sitting
in a cloud (thanks Michaelangelo!)....a faceless being...a white light?
Post by Remnant
This is the crux of the issue. When you question whether God is an
objective reality, you are really questioning whether He is real. Now,
anyone certainly has the right to doubt that God exists. However, in terms
of this conversation I just want you to see that when it comes to God you
are setting up an impossible construct of "proof" where nothing is real that
you do not apply to other "realities" in your life. Unless you equally
question the existence of everything else (and if you did, you would not
eat, clothe yourself, talk, move, etc.) then you are creating your own
roadblocks to God for your own reasons.
B -as I said earlier....I can't personally put the same parameter of proof
down for God as I would an apple or a bench...but then I don't say "God
is" either..that is what I am really saying...to not speak for God for
everyone. I totally believe in God....do I have proof? no...
do I need proof ...no.....do I expect others to provide me with proof just
because I ask for it? no.....what I do hope is that they think twice
before speaking for God for everyone.
Post by Remnant
Further, it would be disrespectful to say to another "God wants you yo
do..." if you have not heard from God that such is the case. However, when
one communicates what God in fact has said, that merely makes you an
effective communicator.
B - and how to believe it when someone says "God has said to me".....?
I believe that those words of "communicating" may need a preface of "in my
experience" first.
Post by Remnant
That is exactly my point. When one proclaims to represent God, you seem
to set-up an argument in your own mind; an argument that creates
impossible realities that are not applied to any other area of your
life.
B - again..no. I do believe in God. I simply have seen parameters to judge
when an apple is there...we all...(most of us) tend to agree on certain
things....but God? God is no apple. Mention God and you will get many many
ideas of communications on what God is.....very very few alike. Do they
have to be alike? no.....will they prompt those with enquiring minds
(non-sheeplike) to ask questions? yes.
Post by Remnant
The natural question then would be why?
B - as I have said...concensus on an apple is not the same as God.
Post by Remnant
So, you don't believe there is such a thing as a lie? If I were to say that
your mother is a mass murderer who is in jail for the rest of her life,
would you respect that as my opinion? If I were to go to your place of work
and start telling people that you are embezelling funds, would you be humble
enough to permit my belief?
B - Ofcourse I believe that many lie. I've had some lie about me.....but I
would have trust in my true friends and those that know me to know when a
lie is a lie and to come to me to ask first. Those that were to believe it
right off....I would just shrug and probably wonder why someone would do
that...what to gain? I might also think you have some mental disorders. My
actions would be to talk to you and ask why you believe that however.
Post by Remnant
One key point you are missing is that I am not required to have my
communications reflect your experiences. You are not required to have your
interactions reflect my experiences. And neither is God.
B - That's right....but I don't speak for God or others..I speak for my
own experience. That is what bothers me is that people speak about God as
if they are speaking for others. That is my only problem with some on this
group.
Post by Remnant
Yet the fact that you want to deny an objective truth about God does not
erase the fact that He does exist. It merely means that you reject Him.
You can say there is no sun, but that does not mean the sun isn't there.
B - I don't ever want to deny an objective truth. I question it only. I
don't reject God whatsoever. You assume quickly.
Post by Remnant
I will also continue to speak for God. Why? Because He is real. He has a
personality. He has likes and dislikes. He wants to communicate to others
about Himself.
B - and I will continue to say please prove.
Post by Remnant
Then I am afraid that you will have a problem with me. I will speak for
God, with no regrets.
B - and I will continue to say prove it.



I will speak His word and when He gives me a specific
Post by Remnant
message to communicate, I will do so. Further, in doing so, I will let it
be known that "thus saith the Lord" so that I do not pervert the truth of
what He has said.
B - and I will continue to say what word? pervert what truth? please
prove.
Post by Remnant
It doesn't sound over the top, it just sounds like someone who has no
current interest in knowing God.
B - Well that is an amazing assumption. Spirituality is my whole life. I
am a Reverend of the Correllian Nativist Tradition, a Wiccan Priestess, a
Christian and a Shamanic Practitioner. No interest in knowing God is quite
the assumption to make about a woman who loves God with all of her heart
and soul...then again...it's your opinion.
Post by Remnant
Exactly. You seem to be using one paradigm for other areas of life but
attribute a different paradigm (where nothing is real) for God.
B - chocolate covered Strawberries are not God.
Post by Remnant
And likewise, if God came to me and told me what He liked, I could say that
He likes such things.
B - and you would have to hear those like me to say "prove it".
Post by Remnant
Yet God's existence is not deendent upon the ability for it to be proven.
B - But my friend...I've never said it Does.
Post by Remnant
He simply exists, just as we exist.
B - and I would ask again....please prove




For that matter, you cannot prove that
Post by Remnant
I exist, yet that hasn't stopped you from engaging in the conversation.
B - Point?
Post by Remnant
Further, if you were to "quote" me directly in terms of what has been
communicated here, by your own definition you could only say "In my opinion
Remnant said".
B - NO..because others can see where your words were coming from you and
what is coming from me.
Post by Remnant
Based on your standards above, this is disrespectful. The posts should
really say, "In our opinion, B.G.Kent wrote..."
B - Blame the way the newsgroup is set up. I don't put that up there..they
do. Again....proof for God is not the same as proof for B.G.Kent.
Post by Remnant
Trying to do? For me I am not trying to do anything. I care not what
others believe. But God has certain things He wants to communicate and I am
happy to be a vessel for that.
B - Prove please.


I.M.O
Bren


*************************************************
Let love guide you in all you do.

*************************************************
Remnant
2006-12-20 03:45:59 UTC
Permalink
<snip>
Post by B.G. Kent
B - Well that is an amazing assumption. Spirituality is my whole life. I
am a Reverend of the Correllian Nativist Tradition, a Wiccan Priestess, a
Christian and a Shamanic Practitioner. No interest in knowing God is quite
the assumption to make about a woman who loves God with all of her heart
and soul...then again...it's your opinion.
B,

I had posted a more detailed response to this post previously, but somehow
it did not make it. That was probably for the best.

Suffice it to say that spirituality is not synanomous God. There are many
spirits - and most of them unclean - but only one Holy Spirit. There are
many doorways into the spirit world, yet only one Door approved by God.

You know where I stand. I am a Christian. And now I see where you stand,
spiritism and the occult. Thank you for taking time to share your point of
view.

Although I am sure you have probably heard this before, I would be remiss if
I did not point out that the road of the occult leads to damnation. Those
who truly seek the Lord will find Him...the True and Living God and not
simply a product of one's imagination. So, I will not waste time trying to
help you see what you are not ready to see. If you ever become ready to
meet Him, He will meet you there.

It is rather sad, however that you are actively practicing so many faiths
and yet are no closer to knowing God for yourself. The fact that you are so
deeply involved with these different faiths yet still feel as if the "god"
you know might not be the real God is evidence in itself that the road you
are on cannot lead you to Him. It is almost like someone going to college
for years on end and never able to receive the goal of their pursuit: a
degree.
Post by B.G. Kent
*************************************************
Let God guide you in all you do.
*************************************************
shegeek72
2006-12-21 05:23:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Remnant
It is rather sad, however that you are actively practicing so many faiths
and yet are no closer to knowing God for yourself. The fact that you are so
deeply involved with these different faiths yet still feel as if the "god"
you know might not be the real God is evidence in itself that the road you
are on cannot lead you to Him. It is almost like someone going to college
for years on end and never able to receive the goal of their pursuit: a
degree.
So the millions of Muslims don't know God. Nor the Buddhists, Shintos,
Jaina monks, etc? Rather presumptuous, don't you think?
B.G. Kent
2006-12-21 05:23:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Remnant
You know where I stand. I am a Christian. And now I see where you stand,
spiritism and the occult. Thank you for taking time to share your point of
view.
B - Spirituality, both (occult)hidden (do not cast pearls before swine)
and
unhidden and above everything else an incredibly deep love for God.
Post by Remnant
Although I am sure you have probably heard this before, I would be remiss if
I did not point out that the road of the occult leads to damnation. Those
B - Yes I've heard this opinion before...I don't agree with your view
though.


If you ever become ready to
Post by Remnant
meet Him, He will meet you there.
B - Oh, I meet God constantly.
Post by Remnant
It is rather sad, however that you are actively practicing so many faiths
and yet are no closer to knowing God for yourself. The fact that you are so
deeply involved with these different faiths yet still feel as if the "god"
*snip
B - NO..it is obvious that you don't understand my way. I do have 100%
faith in God and believe in God..but I don't think I have any proof that
would suffice to all that what I believe is God...is God...so I simply say
in a subjective way as to not disrespect others. I do have absolute belief
in God. I will never say "God is this" to another though unless I can
prove it.


I.M.O

Bren
Remnant
2006-12-22 22:13:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by shegeek72
Post by Remnant
It is rather sad, however that you are actively practicing so many
faiths and yet are no closer to knowing God for yourself. The fact
that you are so deeply involved with these different faiths yet
still feel as if the "god" you know might not be the real God is
evidence in itself that the road you are on cannot lead you to Him.
It is almost like someone going to college for years on end and
never able to receive the goal of their pursuit: a degree.
So the millions of Muslims don't know God. Nor the Buddhists, Shintos,
Jaina monks, etc? Rather presumptuous, don't you think?
Only if it is not truth.
Remnant
2006-12-22 22:13:37 UTC
Permalink
<snip>
Post by B.G. Kent
but I don't think I have any proof that
would suffice to all that what I believe is God...is God
Precisely my point.
Post by B.G. Kent
I.M.O
Bren
B.G. Kent
2006-12-25 06:14:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Remnant
<snip>
Post by B.G. Kent
but I don't think I have any proof that
would suffice to all that what I believe is God...is God
Precisely my point.
B - Which is why I never say "it is" and only "it may be". So it goes with
the Bible as well....can't be proven...so I say "it may be"...
None of that means I don't have any absolutes..it just means that I
respect those who have different points of view as long as it does not
deem to speak for all others and only itself.
I don't think you get it....but that is another thread.


Merry Christmas Remmie.

Bren



****************************************

"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not
believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in
your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the
authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions
because they have been handed down for many generations. But after
observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with
reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then
accept it and live up to it"
- Siddhartha Gautama -

****************************************
shegeek72
2006-12-09 02:29:51 UTC
Permalink
Here's something to ponder --

If the devil (if such a being actually exists) is a fallen angel and
since God created everything and is all-knowing, then She must have
known that the angel was going to fall. Therefore, God created the
devil.

This brings up the conundrum that if God is only love, why would She
create the devil? This supports my belief that negative entities, or
things some think is the devil, or the work of the devil, are really
thought-forms created by people.
--
woman /n./ 1. Person who can be trusted to raise a child but can't be
trusted to decide whether or not she wishes to have a child in the
first place. 2. Person who must have all decisions regarding her
reproductive functions made by men with whom she wouldn't want to have
sex in the first place.
Remnant
2006-12-11 02:49:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by shegeek72
Here's something to ponder --
If the devil (if such a being actually exists) is a fallen angel and
since God created everything and is all-knowing, then She must have
known that the angel was going to fall. Therefore, God created the
devil.
That is faulty logic. God certainly knew that the devil would fall, but
that does not mean that He created the perversion inside of him which led to
the fall.

Do you have children? If your child threw a rock through a neighbor's
window, would it be logical to say, "Since you created the child, you threw
the rock through the window?"

What is missing here (aside from the fact that God is a Father) is that God
gives us free will.
Post by shegeek72
This brings up the conundrum that if God is only love, why would She
create the devil? This supports my belief that negative entities, or
things some think is the devil, or the work of the devil, are really
thought-forms created by people.
Only if the foundation of your premise holds true, which is does not.

murder/n./ 1. One who takes the life of another. 2. One who kills someone
who is innocent
shegeek72
2006-12-12 04:14:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Remnant
That is faulty logic. God certainly knew that the devil would fall, but
that does not mean that He created the perversion inside of him which led to
the fall.
Still if He/She knew the devil would fall (if one even believes this
isn't mythology) that means God created the devil. Whether it happened
during "creation" or after creation doesn't negate that fact the God
was the original creator.
Post by Remnant
Do you have children? If your child threw a rock through a neighbor's
window, would it be logical to say, "Since you created the child, you threw
the rock through the window?"
I'm not God. I wouldn't have known ahead of time that rock would be
thrown.
Post by Remnant
What is missing here (aside from the fact that God is a Father)
Why is God not a mother? That would seem more likely as females are the
life-givers.
Post by Remnant
Only if the foundation of your premise holds true, which is does not.
We don't know if either of our premises hold true until one or the
other can be proven scientifically. My interpretation is just as valid
as your's.
--
Jews don't recognize Jesus as the Messiah.
Protestants don't recognize the Pope as the leader of the Church.
Baptists don't recognize each other at Hooters or the liquor store.
Bob
2006-12-14 04:01:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Remnant
That is faulty logic. God certainly knew that the devil would fall, but
that does not mean that He created the perversion inside of him which led to
the fall.
What is missing here (aside from the fact that God is a Father) is that God
gives us free will.
That brings up an interesting point. God must have given the angels a
free will also since satan obviously exercised his. Then God separated
the good angels from the bad. Yet when it came to humans exercising
free will, He lumped them all together under the original sin concept.
One might come to the conclusion that God was experimenting with the
free will concept.
Bob S.
Remnant
2006-12-18 03:20:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob
Post by Remnant
That is faulty logic. God certainly knew that the devil would fall, but
that does not mean that He created the perversion inside of him which led
to
the fall.
What is missing here (aside from the fact that God is a Father) is that
God
gives us free will.
That brings up an interesting point. God must have given the angels a
free will also since satan obviously exercised his. Then God separated
the good angels from the bad. Yet when it came to humans exercising
free will, He lumped them all together under the original sin concept.
Is that something God did?
Post by Bob
One might come to the conclusion that God was experimenting with the
free will concept.
Bob S.
Bob
2006-12-22 22:13:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Remnant
Post by Bob
That brings up an interesting point. God must have given the angels a
free will also since satan obviously exercised his. Then God separated
the good angels from the bad. Yet when it came to humans exercising
free will, He lumped them all together under the original sin concept.
Is that something God did?
Yes. Or so we have been taught - that all mankind's suffering is the
result of Adam & Eve's sin. Yet nowhere do we have any indication of
all the angels paying for the sin of Satan.

Bob
Matthew Johnson
2006-12-25 06:14:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob
Post by Remnant
Post by Bob
That brings up an interesting point. God must have given the angels a
free will also since satan obviously exercised his. Then God separated
the good angels from the bad. Yet when it came to humans exercising
free will, He lumped them all together under the original sin concept.
Is that something God did?
Yes. Or so we have been taught - that all mankind's suffering is the
result of Adam & Eve's sin.
You _have_ been taught that? That was not what I was taught. What I was taught
is that sin and death entered through the sin of Adam as through a door -- but
that the _cause_ of our own sin is our own evil will, and the ultimate causes of
the suffering are diverse.
Post by Bob
Yet nowhere do we have any indication of
all the angels paying for the sin of Satan.
True. But there are various possible reasons for this, too. It could be, as
Lossky says, because unlike humans, each one of whom is an enhypostaton of human
nature, each angel is a nature of his own. It could be, because the link you
seem to assume between the sin of an individual and the punishment of all is not
quite right, that God's justice has little to do with legalistic, retributive
justice.
--
-------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
Loading...