Who is to Blame?

[Muffled]

I have. They rooted out false apostles Revelation 2:2, not torture or slaughter them.

I believe that works for me. I will surely leave you alive then.

 

[shunyadragon]

I believe He tells it to those who will listen.

. . . many people with diverse conflicting beliefs claim they are sincerely listening disagree,

 

[rational experiences]

Any thoughts as to why witches and other apostates were to be killed? It is noteworthy that all the commands to kill were in the Old Testament. Of course Christianity is a product of the New Testament. You won't find God (or Paul) telling Christians to kill anybody in the NT. Jesus even completely forgave those who crucified him.

For God's plan of redemption to work it was necessary that nothing stand in the way of Jesus' bloodline. It was also necessary for the Jews to stay true to the scriptures. As it was, they were constantly drawn to the religious beliefs of those by whom they were surrounded, forgetting the things God had told them. Had they completely forgotten the scriptures as given to them by God, Jesus would not have been able to come and redeem them. Someone needed to keep the message alive so that a woman could say, "Be it done unto me according to thy word." Apparently Mary was expecting the redeemer. Had she not had the scriptures she, a virgin at the time, could hardly have believed to give birth to Jesus. You can hardly do what you don't know.

Jesus was the purpose of the ages, of God's plan. He is the subject of the Bible from Genesis 3:15 to the end of Revelation. Everything God did in the OT was to ensure the hope would stay alive. God plainly says that He would have all be saved. That is His desire. The scriptures plainly declare, "God is love." Of course, many people were at odds with God and would have done anything to thwart His plan. There were countless attempts by many in the OT to kill the ancestors of Jesus and thus prevent him from ever being born. Apparently God had to do something about that. Hence the command to kill the enemies of truth.

But, as I said before, now that Jesus has come things are quite a bit different. No need to eliminate those who oppose the truth because the job is finished. Death is conquered and the new heavens and new earth (no pain, suffering, sorrow, sickness, etc.) are sure to come.

Take care.

If a human living on one planet that they claim as a male group of same life males and thinkers, the inventors of science......that I came from out of an eternal body.

And many humans today say I 100 per cent believe that when I die that I still own the third part of my self from which I came from...the eternal.

One part of my spirit body, as a whole spirit became the bones...so one whole spirit body gone/converted.
The other one part of my spirit body the bio flesh....and I live and I die.

Then I invented science...and it attacked me and I suffer all conditions of self sacrifice because I invented what natural and spiritual never owned itself SCIENCE...and a machine reaction, as only owned and controlled by living males.

And then claim and so one day the theme I will be totally healed and without any suffering will occur...and you wait for it and believe in it.

What are you waiting for as that human aware mind and self in your reality?

You look around, human suffering is acute.
You watch as human life dies.

Are you waiting to go back into the eternal spirit where there is no such condition as any form of suffering whatsoever....as a returned reactive science choice that you believed that you would achieve as the original science male group...but never achieved it.

Yet seemingly today are still talking about believing that some form of miracle atmospheric reaction will transform the human life/body and mind from what it lives?

Seems to me that is what everyone in science and life attacked by science is discussing rationally.

 

[e.r.m.]

Thanks for your reply. Someone once told me not to preach about God. Why? Because over time people have come to view God as an evil entity, who kills people for pleasure and sends evil upon the world. They told me instead to preach about Jesus. After all nobody could accuse Jesus of ever killing someone, making them sick, or otherwise destroying their lives. How could anybody object to anything Jesus did as recorded in the scriptures? They say he did nothing but good.

But don't the scriptures reveal the truth that Jesus is an exact image of God? Of course they do. So if Jesus wouldn't kill, steal, and destroy (that would be the devil 10:10), then neither would God. Prior to Jesus, the people of the OT were simply not equipped to understand the true nature of God or the devil. They didn't have the connection with God that Jesus made possible by his death and resurrection. Therefore, God "took the rap" for all the evil caused by the devil. He looked ahead to the time when His son would come into the world, reestablish our connection with Him, and reveal to us the true cause of sin and death.

What kind of world did God create? What was His intention for mankind? The scriptures say everything God made was good (Gen 1:31). Part of that goodness was free will. God was not interested in creating robots or puppets that would love, obey, and worship Him without any choice. It certainly wasn't God's will for Adam to disobey and allow for sin and death to enter the scene (Rom 5:12).

I often wonder what Christians think the devil is doing when God supposedly sends sickness, death, poverty, etc, into the world. Do they imagine he stands by with a big grin on his face as he watches God destroy lives, doing his dirty work for him? What a bunch of hog wash! God is love. He does not take babies away from their parents because He wants another feather in His cap. Whenever I hear someone say, "God took my baby to be with Him in Heaven," I think what they are actually saying is, "why did God murder my baby because He wants to make me miserable for the rest of my life?" That may be the God of orthodoxy, but it ain't my God! Again, I always ask myself, what would Jesus do in any given situation? Well, that is exactly what God would do. Neither one of them was fond of destroying people's lives in any way, shape, or form.

Forgive my prattling on, but when it comes to the things of God, I am very animated. I thrive on preaching God's wonderful, matchless word. Thanks for bearing with me!

Been away for a while. Just beginning to read your posts. Will begin to work on responses.

 

[e.r.m.]

I believe that works for me. I will surely leave you alive then.

Thank you, but I wouldn't consider ever claiming to be an apostle.

 

[osgart]

A cult will have a social hierarchy that intimidates to enforce conformity, or face consequences of rejection.

Forced conformity is a cult.

Some religions try to impose their demands upon the rest of society. Then again with some religions there is no coercion.

I am totally against coercion and the creation of consequences for those non conforming.

There is such a thing as reasonable conscience though and law is formed from that. Its in everybody's best interest to know how laws of reasonable conscience are formed and why.

It would be best if a religion's authority does not extend beyond its willful followers.

Religion should never be imposed into law.

General actions are the domain of law and never is it good for religion to enforce their statutes, and rules for everybody in that domain.

If religion intends to keep trying to impose it's reality upon non believers then religion will always draw the ire of the general public.

Of course there are non religious groups that seek to impose their code of morality on other groups that are non willing. I don't like that myself.

Thus we have the dilemma of what is acceptable freedom of conscience. And that can be quite a deep topic.

The interplay of opposing consciences is always a passionately, heated debate.

But I believe that decency will prevail for the issues that really matter to the safety and well being of society, and consensus among opposing consciences can be achieved in those issue areas.

Some areas will always oppose no matter what.

 

[e.r.m.]

. . . many people with diverse conflicting beliefs claim they are sincerely listening disagree,

Either one belief system is right and all the other ones wrong, or everybody is wrong, but everybody cannot be right. There cannot simultaneously exist realities, as described in Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Etc. They are mutually exclusive. So the real God will tell it to those who will listen, what Muffled said is still true.

 

[shunyadragon]

Either one belief system is right and all the other ones wrong, or everybody is wrong, but everybody cannot be right. There cannot simultaneously exist realities, as described in Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Etc. They are mutually exclusive. So the real God will tell it to those who will listen, what Muffled said is still true.

Actually, considering the fallible nature of humanity and the matter of fact nature of our history everybody is indeed possibly, and likely wrong if not to a degree. Claiming that one way out of tens of thousands could be 'true' is self serving and wishful thinking.

Given the 'objective verifiable evidence' that is the basis for our sciences the 'Metaphysical Naturalist' has a leg up on all the many conflicting metaphysical beliefs that are not based on the 'objective verifiable evidence' concerning the nature of our existence.

I believe in God, but considering the evidence the nature of our physical existence that we know through the sciences, if God exists, it is the best reflection of the attributes of God we have.

 

[rational experiences]

Science studied human genetics for a self reasoning, to prove that occult science, the nuclear had attacked life and damaged it.

We all know that Jesus did not save us from pain and suffering and no one can lie to us anymore in science coercion.

Jesus Christ was a science male documented atmospheric study about Noble gases, the regeneration of the oxygen as Holy Ox was a Christ reference symbolically, and Holy baptism of water/evaporation over the head.

We were told that God the conditions of life alive today is a contradiction.

God O the sacred ice, melted, so life is living today for ice melted.
God O the sacred ice, saved, so life is living today for ice was saved.

A contradiction.

So the atmospheric mass was said to be a representation of a science theory, that Jesus Christ each year ICE remassing one day in natural irradiated hot Abominated Mother space, would reach a cooling of mass of gas by 2 situations reviewed.

The asteroid wandering star cooling of space itself...the womb. So Saviour was with the Holy Mother space in the womb, space.

Being put back, wandering its journey.

And ICE was putting back Earth atmospheric gas cooling melting/evaporation, healing.

2012 was said to be the activation point for the date when irradiation of out of space by occult science would have ended....and science of the cult/radiation nuclear never allowed it to be achieved.

So then we get taught, we live as consciousness for about 100 years.

We live, we die, if you base science on a conscious living aware condition, you get destroyed, for the patterned living life conditions does not support the rationality of science destructive/converting as a model.

Russia hit by tree destruction as proof sacrifice of wood in 1800 s nuclear experiments of radiation. It was instant for the science owned/cause UFO EXTRA radiation attack had not stopped. Then about 100 years later value for C, the cooling stone evidence blasting hit again.

Proof that science as a conscious living condition should never have invented science, when consciousness in its precepts only lives for about 100 years of age.

What was taught to lying Satanic irradiated brain affected minds....as a condition, that their thinking proved irrational, and today still does.

 

[e.r.m.]

Actually, considering the fallible nature of humanity and the matter of fact nature of our history everybody is indeed possibly, and likely wrong if not to a degree. Claiming that one way out of tens of thousands could be 'true' is self serving and wishful thinking.

Given the 'objective verifiable evidence' that is the basis for our sciences the 'Metaphysical Naturalist' has a leg up on all the many conflicting metaphysical beliefs that are not based on the 'objective verifiable evidence' concerning the nature of our existence.

I believe in God, but considering the evidence the nature of our physical existence that we know through the sciences, if God exists, it is the best reflection of the attributes of God we have.

Human nature is to divide and proliferate. I believe it entirely plausible that "God" started things out as He desired and we humans, wanting to follow our own way(s), have obscured how God started it out, by proposing so many choices.

 

[rational experiences]

Human nature is to divide and proliferate. I believe it entirely plausible that "God" started things out as He desired and we humans, wanting to follow our own way(s), have obscured how God started it out, by proposing so many choices.

And males as the self applied highest presence, thinker and thinking, human and male constantly claim and God is a he, a self as a male.

If he were just talking science as what he claims is just science relativity it would not in any context own any male claim to it.....yet he does not infer separateness...when science is to apply the machine condition, to force separation.

Science says that creation began, as a conscious expression, a male thinking from a hot dense state. Rationality says that the Earth heavens began from stone and a volcanic eruption as that hot dense state.

And consciousness is only relative to its natural historic support recognition of ideas.

If a male says, and cold radiation is why I am alive today....its relevant ideal is to say, so do not change cold radiation, for I will be attacked.

Yet irrational males who want cold radiation for science and also hot radiation for science lied to their self. Cold radiation natural history supports our existence, how it was explained in the males own psyche. Yet if a male, as a self tried to compare a human bio life or cell to cold radiation, he would be destroyed by it.....as his inference to what he says is beginnings or evolution or change to Deities.

Which is only imposed by he, the male self thinking.

For if you were not thinking for science, it would not exist.
If you were not thinking science for a machine and reaction, it would not exist.

I was harmed by the presence of machines and males using those machines. If he did not own those machines I would not be harmed. Common sense.

 

[shunyadragon]

Human nature is to divide and proliferate. I believe it entirely plausible that "God" started things out as He desired and we humans, wanting to follow our own way(s), have obscured how God started it out, by proposing so many choices.

This is possible, but your statement above justifies my approach to the claims of the diverse conflicting religious worldviews claiming to know what is 'true.' Actually, that is how ancient religions like Judaism, Christianity and the many diverse conflicting churches, and Islam view the diversity of religious beliefs that disagree with their perspective being any one of the above.

Just a note per the topic of the thread: If God exists, God is responsible for everything, If God does not exist humans nor any no one person is responsible for everything, but their own actions in the context of their own sense of community..

 

[e.r.m.]

And males as the self applied highest presence, thinker and thinking, human and male constantly claim and God is a he, a self as a male.

If he were just talking science as what he claims is just science relativity it would not in any context own any male claim to it.....yet he does not infer separateness...when science is to apply the machine condition, to force separation.

Science says that creation began, as a conscious expression, a male thinking from a hot dense state. Rationality says that the Earth heavens began from stone and a volcanic eruption as that hot dense state.

And consciousness is only relative to its natural historic support recognition of ideas.

If a male says, and cold radiation is why I am alive today....its relevant ideal is to say, so do not change cold radiation, for I will be attacked.

Yet irrational males who want cold radiation for science and also hot radiation for science lied to their self. Cold radiation natural history supports our existence, how it was explained in the males own psyche. Yet if a male, as a self tried to compare a human bio life or cell to cold radiation, he would be destroyed by it.....as his inference to what he says is beginnings or evolution or change to Deities.

Which is only imposed by he, the male self thinking.

For if you were not thinking for science, it would not exist.
If you were not thinking science for a machine and reaction, it would not exist.

I was harmed by the presence of machines and males using those machines. If he did not own those machines I would not be harmed. Common sense.

It started as
Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:...

Not, Let's make God in our image. The male concept started with the creator, not man.

 

[rational experiences]

It started as
Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:...

Not, Let's make God in our image. The male concept started with the creator, not man.

The male speaking about relativity knew that if God the causes of, as a reaction created a man in the image....then in the image was created the man.

As an imaged recording of his own science self.

Why he knew instantly that the God creator concept had not created him at all....for all the reaction caused on the ground mass O, mass being where his machine was taken from....was just an image.

Yet because the image was caused, his life was reflectively converted.

For he does claim conversion means transformation through destruction....and his owned bio genesis, only owned as he lives in a fully self owned human body, that he details concepts about as a SELF when it is changed.

If you altered your own bio genetics due to a radiation converting reaction, then he scientifically proved that he had changed the laws of natural historic fusion and was changed for it.

Which claims, that as cold fusion is only held in mass, if you alter mass, then cold disappears, the lesson he taught his own science self.

 

[e.r.m.]

The male speaking about relativity knew that if God the causes of, as a reaction created a man in the image....then in the image was created the man.

As an imaged recording of his own science self.

Why he knew instantly that the God creator concept had not created him at all....for all the reaction caused on the ground mass O, mass being where his machine was taken from....was just an image.

Yet because the image was caused, his life was reflectively converted.

For he does claim conversion means transformation through destruction....and his owned bio genesis, only owned as he lives in a fully self owned human body, that he details concepts about as a SELF when it is changed.

If you altered your own bio genetics due to a radiation converting reaction, then he scientifically proved that he had changed the laws of natural historic fusion and was changed for it.

Which claims, that as cold fusion is only held in mass, if you alter mass, then cold disappears, the lesson he taught his own science self.

Sorry, I don't get what you're saying with relativity, science, and mass.

 

[rational experiences]

Sorry, I don't get what you're saying with relativity, science, and mass.

A male exists first as a bio life and a human to claim I will think on behalf of the statement for science.

In his life his existence is relative....why he infers bio community to owning relatives.

As the bio life is in its owned highest form, being a relative is exact.

In science relativity is used to impose I can force mass to be removed back to a destroyed form...and knows that information from a planetary condition that it in its natural spatial body, a self destructive mass.....as an explained male human history about a planet.

And not about his own self.

Yet in using and applying conscious ideals a male also realized that his own life body eventually destroyed itself also.....so applied comparisons of self bio life form to a planet....when in relative history and relationships, humans as a bio life do not own reactive force history.