Bible Questions

[emilynghiem]

Hi DT this is excellent!
I mostly agree, and just know from experience that in practice,
once presented and adopted by different groups, they are going to change
the model a little to fit those people in that group. so we could present a basic
set up, but it would come out different in order for people to assimilate it.

I think it is important to find the key ppl first from each major group
either by party or by issue who are those special people able to cross
over lines and work with diverse even opposing factions especially
within their own group, and make sure we have facilitators lined up
to even present this idea because people may start projecting emotionally
the past issues in preparing for the massive change this would entail.

We need to leave room for people to process out all the added pressures
the political system has put on people, as part of the process. Not everyone
is able to drop the backbiting within 3 msgs and get to work. People on here
are exceptional in comparison. So if we can find the other exceptional ppl to
work with it makes it easier to set up where ppl already feel they will be
included and won't freak out as much at the concept of forming consensus
with "those other people" being equaly in the process. some ppl need more
time and space to deal with that concept, as it can cause a shock to the system.
I think you have seen this before, what I am talking about.

I only have a few points to insert in the actual list you made. (the rest of my reply is elaborating on detailed examples of problems/solutions I propose)
My main gift I have to offer is getting people to the table who
are coming from such an different angle they already assume
they will be rejected and so they automatically reject others.
I can help with the freak outs and grieving that people go through
before after and during deep spiritual change and process, because
i won't judge them for whatever comes out of their mouths.

As they get over the initial grief and fear, then anyone can mediate
with anyone after the worse shock part is over. Some people have
gone through the first part but not finished the second; others have
not even gone through the first part yet, so they have no idea how much
work it takes both sides to reconcile and don't think it's possible to change because they haven't. they will think only the other side needs to change, and since they won't,
then they raise a stink about the whole process etc. If possible I'd like to be prepared
to have different groups forums or leaders already on the team to handle what they
know of their own constituency so they can address their own audiences in an inclusive way. I've found a lot of these special key ppl in my network already, so I trust they will attract the others who are like that, on all sides, to come join in on how to set this up.

sorry for the long msgs since I tend to be a "process" person
thanks for cutting through all that and getting to the points
these are great and I think we can do this
I met some party members from Dems and Greens and also
some Occupy who are key to this process, at least for where I am locally,
and we just need a standard outline to follow and teams can form
to fill in the rest. if we have an example team to start with, then
others can follow, and can even ask help with facilitating and mentoring
if they get stuck. there are ways to deal with people who start rejecting or
projecting as part of the change process, so we shouldn't freak out when that
happens, not judge, but include that as part of what to expect and work with them.

1. yes, occupy used this and it worked. should be clear
that groups AGREE per their own teams and this isn't being dictated
to them which causes people to freak out

2. yes and no. If people agree to majority rule, such as whether a coin should have this design or that one, ok.
but on religious issues where people feel they are the minority being trampled on just because they are outnumbered, this causes objections by religious freedom.
some things may require separation of policies or funding, because people can't live with funding the other option, period. if this is not recognized,some ppl will not even come forward. and even when it is offered, they may not beieve the other group will concede and it takes mediation and work just to get them to separate and focus not fight each other.
so I would leave this open, depending what issue is being addressed.

the groups who beleive in bullying by majority rule can go at each other that's fine.

I'm interested in teh ones who want a consensus or separation of policies and funding,
how do we set those up, so after it is done right the other groups can come support
the options of their choice that don't require bullying anymore becuase it's all resolved.

3. yes, and this is where it takes special people to assimilate the information as you do, and people like me who can let people vent and process emotionally and still communicate so they aren't rejected from inclusion just because of their emotions during the changes and pressures this exerts on people. we need to have both. i agree to let the human process be accommodated outside to keep it inclusive and let people express and represent themselves. and after that the key points in writing can be presented that will still include all the energy and input from the people without being compromised.

this is part of free speech and free press, to use them both together like two blades
of the same pair of scissors

4 and 5. some of the work cannot be fully theorized in advance but better assessed by a working model that people agree to test out and do R&D to perfect it. many ppl need to see proof something works at all and/or is more cost-effective before they will even agree to present such a policy, such as with arguments over how to fix health care that aren't proven yet so people disagree.

as for budgets, some things we cannot afford to set up the models to fix because the problems are already costing all the money and resources we had.

this is where I have a rather innovative proposal that combines 2-3 ideas already in use
a. independent currency already used by models such as Paul Glover's ithaca hours
and the green party labor pools that have set this up for different communities for years
b. microlending and microdonations
c. restitution for past wrongs where lawyers often get advances from either lenders
or insurance to pay for the work to get the money settled and paid later
what i propose is for certain debts and damages to be addressed by assessing the cost to taxpayers, lending the money in advance against the projects or programs used as collateral to the investors, and possibly issuing notes aginst the debts to manage the
paid jobs and work to develop and implement the solution, and then hold the wrongdoers
who abused tax money responsible for paying back the debt such as an account througha system similar to the federal reserve. so this is banked against old money already spent, not new money issued, and the people respo;nsible pay back the damages to taxpayers
which is invested forward into what our money should have been paying for. this would create jobs for lawyers or interns in law schools to finance govt reform and restitution
by taking on case by case issues where tax moneyor resoruces were abused for private profit. and instead of citizens paying that bill where we did not do the crime, the issue is assessed for who is accountable for the debt. if it cannot be paid back, that is where citizens who agree to invest in lending to govt, get either profits or interest, or shares
in whateer property or program is the site of the problem and the solution built around it. this will create jobs in restoration correction work and/or educatioin adn trianing to prevent whatever problem was caused by unchecked govt or corporate abuses that cost us
billions in debt. so that is where the budget can come from to pay for the corrections.

this is a massive propposal in itself, so I offer two model sites we can use to test and see how this could work and tweak it so it can be replicated for other cities, issues or sites.
1. headwaters forest in california destroyed by a corrupt corporate take over and bail out at taxpayer expense of over 1.6 billion. the work to restore the ecosystem and endangered species in the redwoods and rivers is worth much more in terms of cost to do all that study and work. so if you value the forest at the cost of the work to restore and maintain it, ca could use this as their fort knox to issue notes against the value and microlend through investors who own shares in teh project, and fund jobs or educational internships for students to do all the remedial studies and work to save the forest.
to help raise publicity and funds for student groups to take on this project i even wrote
a pr campaign to have video and music contests using songs that teach the history of
the whole takeover and destruction of headwaters: http://www.houstonprogressive.org so all the stars in ca and hollywood
can help with fundraising contests to save the forest and ca economy based on green jobs
2. freedmenstown.com national historic district
this even has a federal reserve building built over teh former site of historic burials
and hospital removed against the protests of historic preservationists, where millions in tax and public money was abused to destroy state and national history instead of preserving the community whose rights were violated by censorship and exclusion from due process.
I live here and got sucked into a civil rights battle I did not know what still going on since the days when slaves were freed to build this historic church settlement overrun by corporate interests who hijacked govt to do their bidding. I got most of these ideas based on what it took to unite the community around solutions solid enough to prsent to govt forfixing this mess,especially where the govt has no more money left for preservation since so much got spent on seizing and destroying history abusing public resources.

These are two examples of where microlending against debts and damages
could be tested out to see if it is a stable way to finance restoration work and jobs
without inflating or collapsing economy or govt as people are afriad of now.

some people may not need real examples but can deal with just legislative process.
some may need to see how it works. and some may just freak out either way
but if we have the different groups set up then they can follow the one they feel
most comfortable with, and not feel anything is being dictated that is foreign to them.

thanks DT I'm glad you are able to do the part that I am not so good at
and I hope also that the parts I can help ppl with work side by side with that
to include everyoen no matter where they are in teh process of change.

Dear Emily,

These posts are becoming huge so let's try and summarize the points. (Not to imply that your detailed points aren't valid. ) Can we agree on the following;

1. Everyone has an equal say but when it comes to a consensus proposal it is a subset working group who drafts the proposal.

2. All taxpayer funds are equal and while individuals/minorities might have objections to funding certain government functions that cannot be a reason to prevent a compromise if the majority consents. e.g. Believers objecting to contraception funding while Atheists object to "in God we trust" on the currency. Neither group has a majority position on their individual objections so they have to bow to the majority will as long as no individual rights are impacted or minority oppression is involved.

3. We adopt the Nixonian approach to dealing with all issues under review. Nixon insisted that all arguments must be presented to him in writing as opposed to orally. The reason for this was to prevent personalities influencing his decision making. (This practice was continued throughout all subsequent administrations except for the prior one.) The goal here is that all positions, both pro and con, must be submitted in writing with reasons and justifications for those positions. This eliminates most of the personal biases/objections since it requires facts and logical arguments. (The Supreme Court uses a similar method but focuses more on legal issues.)

4. The subgroup tasked with reaching the compromise proposal takes the written submissions and summarizes them. From this each of the points is examined and thrashed out based upon constitutionality, cost, potential consequences and need. A draft proposal is then submitted for approval. Since the goal of the compromise proposal is to be inclusive the basis for any exclusions must be given with stated reasons such as unconstitutional, too costly, undue burden, etc.

5. A cost/benefit analysis must be drafted to go along with the compromise proposal.

6. The results of 4 and 5 above must be posted on the internet and pushed to as many forums and media outlets as is feasible. This builds a national consensus on the compromise proposal and initiates momentum for it be passed. Since all sides have had a chance to contribute and the benefits are non partisan there should be no basis for this not being passed with bi-partisan support.

What do you think?

Regards,
Derideo_Te

Clearly I really need more help like yours to summarize all my stuff from now on. you are great thanks!

for an immediate test case, instead of 1 and 2 above which are complex,
I could see proposing a compromise alternative to the TX governor who
does not want federal ACA to be mandated in conflict with state rights.
so to fund an alternative, I propose giving taxpayers the option of investing
1500 each into building or restoring historic sites/schools/prisons or other
complexes as Veteran facilities for health care or treatments centers for
mentally/criminally ill using more effective methods such as spiritual healing
which can be proven medically as part of the medical education and services
being funded. so intead of paynig for insurance, the investors actually pay
to develop and expand the medical education and services to the people,
addressing areas where rsources are wasted ineffectively, and applying
the saved money toward providing public health services for more of the general population.
this can even be done by making the public services part of the medical education
adn internship training, so you fund both at once instead of insurance which does not
create the actual service providers or facilities needed to serve the increased population of clients under ACA.

the governor is currently under pressure to either accept or come up with an alternative.
and other conservative republicans are pushing to set up something that would work.
could we apply your proposed steps there, and would the spiritual healing
need to be included in the budget part of cost analysis, as the focus of medical R&D to address and redirect the billions
wasted on a failed mental health and criminal justice system that isn't curing anyone
but wasting resources on medicating symptoms after someone is found to be ill.
the anti-death penalty groups just met friday at the capitol lobbying for
the mental health issue to be addressed, so why not address these together
and present a model solution, picking key sites to use as test pilot programs
and see if taxpayers will voluntarily finance it instead of ACA and if it works
to cut the costs of the state budget and to serve more people with public health services
that are more cost-effective also. is that simple enough or can you simplify that more?

 

[Foxfyre]

And while I like Emily and D.t. a lot, and while I enjoy Emily and D.T.'s thoughtful commentary and posts, I really think the political stuff should be moved to the political forum and leave this thread for Bible commentary as intended.

 

[Derideo_Te]

And while I like Emily and D.t. a lot, and while I enjoy Emily and D.T.'s thoughtful commentary and posts, I really think the political stuff should be moved to the political forum and leave this thread for Bible commentary as intended.

You are right, as always. We did get off track.

 

[Foxfyre]

A Mama Fox ((hug)) to everybody. (I'm in a really good mood this morning. )

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Kosher Girl:
You mentioned demonic influences that bias or speak through people.
And I agree that a lot of division/rebellion from unforgiveness does attract
those demonic/negative energies to infect the wounds, instead of angelic/positive
energies that heal with forgiveness.

the issue of curing criminal illness/addiction by applying spiritual healing and deliverance methods
came up under examples of govt reforms that would affect how we fund policies,
and reforming institutions currently wasting public resources placating
problems of crime and mental illness without addressing the real causes in order to solve them cost-effectively.

Can you talk more about what you understand about demonic forces and deliverance?
Do we need to start a new thread for that?

To tie in with the Bible, I found out there are some denominations who
interpret the Bible as saying that spiritual healing went away and ended when
Jesus left because it was only used to prove his divine authority.

But the way I understand this, is the spiritual healing went away temporarily
because people quit forgiving, and so the warning that past sins will be
revisted on future generations comes true where people don't forgive
and pass the recurring abusive patterns to be repeated for several generations.

then at the point people agree to forgive and break through these patterns or
curses from unforgiveness (as the one blasphemy against the holy spirit
that is not forgiven because we have to ask forgiveness by free will since grace is not forced on us)
then there is spiritual healing where divine grace through Jesus is
received and resolves the past sins that are still carried forward until they are forgiven and given to God through Christ.

Teh two denominations I found that teach rejection of spiritual healing as demonic
and not God's will but people playing and trying to be jesus which is wrong are
* jehovah's witnesses
* church of christ
so I do believe it is a key Bible issue to reach a consensus on what
the passages mean when the spiritual healing ends, and if it comes back
as part of teh process of receiving Christ/Salvation later. And if the
purpose of why God allows the sins to go unresolved where generations
suffer for a time in between is to teach us by free will and reason, so
we compare what happens when we don't forgive, and the difference
it makes when we do agree to ask help with spiritual forgiveness and healing
which is wha tthe deliverance prayer is used for.

The people I know who use spiritual healing/deliverance freely to help
people and do not abuse their gifts to try to make money off people's problems
are listed on my signature website http://www.spiritual-healing.us
My friend Olivia is working to form a team to prove this medically through studies
and research, and I recommend Scott Peck's book which explains how this is
needed for psychiatric diagnosis and treatment where he found it effectively helped to cure
severe schizophrenic patients of demonic voices that had taken over their minds.

What is your understanding of demons and spiritual healing
or do you want to start a new thread? if it's short enough
can we keep it here as part of the Bible interpretation questions.

Thanks!
Emily

 

[emilynghiem]

Can I come to the big table now? But y'all gotta stop talking with big werds and political stuff in this one thread...otherwise I will stay at my little table and sneak under the big table to pinch some calves and maybe smear icing on some fancy shoes.

Hi Gracie believe it or not, the inner child in me which acts more like a 6 year old boy, is right there with you under the table and giggling and singing songs. It really stretches me to deal with serious church-state stuff blah blah blah, but it's something in my spiritual DNA, like past karma leftover from the days of Jefferson that still needs to be worked out and somehow landed on my conscience. Whatever game of musical chairs or hot potato was being played, I ended up with it in my lap with no chair to sit on either, so I got stuck both ways! I can share this hot potato with others, and maybe we can make french fries out of it we can all enjoy. or throw at each other. If we can work like adults while also playing like kids together and have fun, too, that's the best of both worlds. thank you for bringing these special folks together on your thread, where it seems we could do both!

P.S. if you want to give a gift back to your sister, here is a video series
you can order and share or donate to her church library:

Animate — Come to Life
animate. Faith. The new seven-session adult course from sparkhouse. We brought together seven leading Christian voices to create an accessible, ...
[http://animate.wearesparkhouse.org] - Cached
[Note I really found Nadia Bolz-Weber interesting because she is so honest about the problems she had understanding Christianity when it was taught in a negative fear-based way, she actually makes it funny! Why teach God as some kind of angry daddy who killed jesus because we humans were so bad! I think she makes it safe to admit some of this stuff scares people which doesn't make sense; and usually the only people I see making fun of this stuff are the opponents trying to attack, but she uses it to correct and explain how she finally made sense of it all. Very personal approach.]

As for the other speakers, instead of just preaching the Bible as others do, they picked topics that people have different views or explanations of, like what the Cross means or how does Salvation really work. And they presented some of their issues questions and understanding, and let the viewers discuss which things or thoughts they agree with or don't, and let people work it out through their own discussions and sharing with each other.

They didn't dictate the answers but ask other people what do you think of all this?

so this reminds me of how you invited us to share our ideas and thoughts, and you didn't judge us for our answers, but just listened and picked the ideas that make sense to you from what everyone else was throwing out there.

you would make a good forum facilitator, because it helps to stay more neutral, even empty, and not impose or inject personal limitations or conditions or else some people will feel left out. you even went so far and to let yourself feel left out by putting everyone else first. so that is what I mean by you being more generous than you give yourself credit for.

Gracie if you are this open, you could have a special gift as a forum host that would invite and encourage people to participate without fear of jdugment rejection or exclusion.
if we dont have ppl like you, then we never resolve things because someone gives up and is left out, so we never finish addressing what all the points or objections were and the problems keep going on and on. You may think you are not saying anything, but successful mediation often needs someone who will let everyone else say things and not interject at all. You may have a gift for that, it's rare and important.

If you wouldn't mind an additional birthday gift, in thanks for you starting this thread in the spirit of openness that you did which makes a differnce, I am happy to order and donate the Animate series to you or a church library if you want to share and borrow it but let others use it, or to your sister, whatever you feel woudl work. then you could watch the series and pick one that you can share with your sister to discuss, or you can share with people on here and have more parties! to share videos and chat with people, i think if you use skype then each person has to have an account with skype. if you use the free video/chat through Digital Samba - OnSync - All-in-one web conferencing solution | All-in-one web conferencing solution then you can email people and invite them without them having to sign up for an account, but it is limited to just 3 users, you as the host and 2 guests. let me know if you are interested in some fun materials to host more sharing parties, because I think you are gifted in bringing people together and bringing out the ideas and information they ahve to share, because you are so open and inviting.

what do you think? is there a church library or education/study group with a Lutheran or Unitarian Universalist group that would be interested in this video series? If so, you could watch it first, and then decide if there is one or more you'd like to share with others, etc. and donate the set to a local library/educational dept when you are done, where others can borrow it.

I only saw the one about the meaning of God and the Cross
and the one about Salvation. My take on that is that Salvation is
already done as in the script being written to have a happy ending for everyone;
but in the human process of living life in a linear timeline, then we go through
steps to get there, so we go through a spiritual process to realize Salvation
but it is not conditional, it is given freely, and the more we forgive and work
with the process, the more we receive spiritual peace and blessings in life
that are already written into the script.So the free gift of Salvation through divine grace/forgiveness
is both in the process and in the happy ending; it is both the journey and the destination at the same time, not either or.

I will post a separate msg about how the Cross is interpreted in different ways or contexts by different people, and we
can discuss that,too. Thanks Gracie. let me know if you want to try the video series.
my email is emily nghiem at hotmail if there is a mailing or church address you would like me to order and send the series to as a special birthday gift to have more fun parties with
Happy Birthday!

Yours truly,
Emily

 

[emilynghiem]

And while I like Emily and D.t. a lot, and while I enjoy Emily and D.T.'s thoughtful commentary and posts, I really think the political stuff should be moved to the political forum and leave this thread for Bible commentary as intended.

You are right, as always. We did get off track.

So sorry to Gracie and you and everyone for all that.
Can we chalk it up under the related issue of
interpreting Jesus in the Bible as meaning
Restorative Justice. and the idea that Jesus as Mediator governs
and fulfills both the scriptural laws of the church
and the natural laws of the secular state. So we were
demonstrating that taking this spirit to the govt/secular laws
also "guides" people toward peace and justice, where Jesus is still the shepherd
of both folds of the one flock, where church and state don't need to be divided in conflict.

is that okay that we were demonstrating by example
that if you redress grievances by Matthew 18:15-20
and resolve the points then you can reach agreement?

sorry and let's see on which topics we could start new threads.
thank you for accommodating the process here that certainly
branched out in more directions than expected!

 

[emilynghiem]

So for my very first question, here is a quote that made me stop reading for awhile until I digest what your opinions are in the meaning of the following:

26 And God went on to say: “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness, and let them have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and the domestic animals and all the earth and every moving animal that is moving upon the earth.”27And God proceeded to create the man in his image, in God’s image he created him; male and female he created them.

1. Who is US and OUR?
2. If God is spiritual and not flesh and blood...how does a spirit have form to look humanoid?

OK back to the topic.
0. the way I understand humanity made in God's image
is that human nature reflects the same three levels of God/Jesus/HolySpirit
we are
body/mind/spirit
and collectively when you consider all humanity joined as one
this is the equivalent of what God/Jesus/Holyspirit represent

A. collective spiritual truth/love on the highest universal level including all people/creation
C. the physical collective of humanity on earth, society and history as a whole over all time
B. the level of conscience and connections through Christ that joins these two levels.

so our physical reality and existence on earth (which the Gentiles/secular humanists
and approaches focus on by secular/civil/natural laws)
and our spiritual life on a global/heavenly level (which the churched believers focus on through scriptural laws and religious teachings to explain in abstract forms and terms)

are joined as one in harmony and peace where we agree in teh spirit of truth.
so the truth sets us free from division and strife
and saving grace salvation from suffering is received
by asking divine forgiveness where the spirit of Jesus overcomes
the negative ill will preventing peace, and the Holy Spirit is
healing grace that follows which renews our body/mind/spirit all three levels.
So when all humanity receives this ultimate level of healing,
then Jesus/HolySpirit or Justice with Peace/Healing Grace is
received and made manifest in the real world as it exists on a heavenly abstract realm.

2. God the father in heaven represents the infinite universal spirit and truth
which you are right cannot be contained in finite human form and still be the whole of God

Jesus being God means being the unique incarnation of God's Justice or Divine Will
embodied in man, so while this is distinct from the greater God the father in heaven
but these two are also one in spirit completely inseparable so that is what it
means for Jesus to be God.

See John 10:29 where Jesus says God the Father is greater, but also
the son and the father are one.

the ways I can best explain this is by analogy or parable:
there is one government, not three separate ones, but the three branches are distinct
and not the same as each other with distinct powers; yet all three are one government.

human beings and nature have three distinct levels
body mind spirit
superego ego id
so though I have these three distinct levels of experience
that are not the same as each other, I am one person, not three

another way I heard it explained
the same man can be a
a father
a son
a husband
and still be one man not three

God's truth and love are infinite and cover all things beyond human finite
perception, comprehension and ability to express in words

so we use parables or reflections of God to explain in a limited context
to understand the RELATIONSHIP between man and God.

our understanding and experience is limited to our physical reality
and ability to learn, see and express through our relations and communications

God's love is greater than all that

so the connection between the two is where
God's love/truth/will/justice was incarnated
in the form of Jesus to bring the two levels together, or back together.

Jesus represents the bridge between the two,
being both of God and of human form so we
can connect these two, and love each other
the way God does from the higher kind of love that knows no bounds.

The Bible gives two great commandments and Jesus gave a third:
1. to love God with all our heart mind and soul
3. to love our neighbor as ourselves
and
2. in John 13:34 Jesus fulfills both of these rejoined as one by
teaching to love one another as Jesus loves us, which is
the same as how God loves us unconditionally.

so instead of loving each other conditionally as material ways
of the world influence us to do (only rewarding the good
and rejecting not loving the bad), we instead are called
to receive and share God's unconditional love made possible
through Christ Jesus. By agreeing to let Jesus and the laws of God
he represent enter our hearts relationships and lives thorugh forgiveness
then God's love is what flows through our relationships, not conditional
love and sharing which causes jealousy competition and conflict by man's selfish ways.

So this is where Jesus represents reconnnecting the
physical realm of humanity with the divine heavenly realm of
God which is infinite. We can't receive all that because it is too great,
but we can receive Jesus and the maximum that can be manifested in human form.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Dear Emily,

These posts are becoming huge so let's try and summarize the points. (Not to imply that your detailed points aren't valid. ) Can we agree on the following;

1. Everyone has an equal say but when it comes to a consensus proposal it is a subset working group who drafts the proposal.

2. All taxpayer funds are equal and while individuals/minorities might have objections to funding certain government functions that cannot be a reason to prevent a compromise if the majority consents. e.g. Believers objecting to contraception funding while Atheists object to "in God we trust" on the currency. Neither group has a majority position on their individual objections so they have to bow to the majority will as long as no individual rights are impacted or minority oppression is involved.

3. We adopt the Nixonian approach to dealing with all issues under review. Nixon insisted that all arguments must be presented to him in writing as opposed to orally. The reason for this was to prevent personalities influencing his decision making. (This practice was continued throughout all subsequent administrations except for the prior one.) The goal here is that all positions, both pro and con, must be submitted in writing with reasons and justifications for those positions. This eliminates most of the personal biases/objections since it requires facts and logical arguments. (The Supreme Court uses a similar method but focuses more on legal issues.)

4. The subgroup tasked with reaching the compromise proposal takes the written submissions and summarizes them. From this each of the points is examined and thrashed out based upon constitutionality, cost, potential consequences and need. A draft proposal is then submitted for approval. Since the goal of the compromise proposal is to be inclusive the basis for any exclusions must be given with stated reasons such as unconstitutional, too costly, undue burden, etc.

5. A cost/benefit analysis must be drafted to go along with the compromise proposal.

6. The results of 4 and 5 above must be posted on the internet and pushed to as many forums and media outlets as is feasible. This builds a national consensus on the compromise proposal and initiates momentum for it be passed. Since all sides have had a chance to contribute and the benefits are non partisan there should be no basis for this not being passed with bi-partisan support.

What do you think?

Regards,
Derideo_Te

Dear Genius,

1. Consensus means everyone agrees to something. Everyone means everyone, not just the ones that are being reasonable. It does not matter who drafted a proposal in a consensus group unless everyone in that group agrees to it.
2. First, as I have already pointed out, there is no such thing as a majority consensus. That pretty much destroys anything else you are trying to say here, but I am going to proceed on the theory that other people actually understand politics. Let me explain how this works in a democracy. No one I am aware of is actively opposing government funding contraception. All that talk about taxes sounds nice, but in the real world people are being forced to pay a third party, not the government, for something they personally object to. If you let that slide eventually someone will decide that insurance should cover faith healing, and force you to buy a policy that covers it so that someone else can use it. See the problem yet?
3. Yeah, because there is no way to bring personality into writing. Strange how a person who can write that sentence actually has a personal problem with another person based on nothing more than their writing. By the way, what is your source for the Nixonian approach being about stripping personalities from the discussion?
4. I see now, you want to take a process we already have, and redo it the exact same way simply because you think it makes sense to do what we are already doing, but you want to pretend you thought of it.
5. Ever here of the CBO? The OMB? Do you understand that that is exactly what they do?
6. We do that to.

Amazing, not only do you not understand the issues, you don't even understand the process, and are so brilliant that you actually came up with a process we developed 200 years ago, even though you think the world is a lot different now.


Calling you an arrogant idiot doesn't even begin to adequately describe you.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Congratulations to Quantum Windbag on being the 1st to qualify for the ignore list. This list is reserved for stalkers, trolls, flamers and other malcontents who provide nothing of value. Have a nice life.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Congratulations to Quantum Windbag on being the 1st to qualify for the ignore list. This list is reserved for stalkers, trolls, flamers and other malcontents who provide nothing of value. Have a nice life.

This is what people who claim to be adults act like?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Congratulations to Quantum Windbag on being the 1st to qualify for the ignore list. This list is reserved for stalkers, trolls, flamers and other malcontents who provide nothing of value. Have a nice life.

This is what people who claim to be adults act like?

That you are unaware that adults regularly impose timeouts on children who don't know how to behave themselves comes as no surprise whatsoever.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Genius,


[*]Consensus means everyone agrees to something. Everyone means everyone, not just the ones that are being reasonable. It does not matter who drafted a proposal in a consensus group unless everyone in that group agrees to it.
[*]First, as I have already pointed out, there is no such thing as a majority consensus. That pretty much destroys anything else you are trying to say here, but I am going to proceed on the theory that other people actually understand politics. Let me explain how this works in a democracy. No one I am aware of is actively opposing government funding contraception. All that talk about taxes sounds nice, but in the real world people are being forced to pay a third party, not the government, for something they personally object to. If you let that slide eventually someone will decide that insurance should cover faith healing, and force you to buy a policy that covers it so that someone else can use it. See the problem yet?

Hey QW Thanks again for your honest responses. If this goes further, let's take the cue from FF and DT and start a new thread. Gracie was not interested in the political applications of the process in the Bible, but the content of the Bible and how to read it.

1. for consensus, what I think we are asking DIFFERENTLY here is to admit and spell out
which points are agreed upon and which are not. so laws can be passed that address the universal/public policies where there is full consent; and we can ALSO agree HOW to delegate the other points of dissension to different solutions using local institutions or
separate programs such as funded per party. So even where we DISAGREE we can still have a CONSENSUS on how to solve the problems GIVEN that there are different paths.
that's not been done before, and the point is to prevent deadlocks/bullying going on now.

Do you see the difference in what I was asking and encouraging that we try to do?

p.s. as for spiritual healing, why not have separate groups/private christian insurance or coops that can cover
this and not force anyone to pay or participate where it's all voluntary. the groups I know that work do so because of free choice and only voluntary participation and support.
the mandatory taxes would only be for things people agree cover all people who agree to pay, such as national security, or internet etc.
if there is disagreement, either separate out, or resolve the personal issue making someone object if they don't want to take responsibility for separating out; one or the other.
and if healing criminal illness or addiction is required to prevent someone from being a danger to self or society,
that still has to be done by free choice, the person has to agree to go through the steps or they won't work.
you can require them to be in detention if they are not safe to be in public, but can't force the steps of spiritual healing treatment, much less any funding for it.

[*]Yeah, because there is no way to bring personality into writing. Strange how a person who can write that sentence actually has a personal problem with another person based on nothing more than their writing. By the way, what is your source for the Nixonian approach being about stripping personalities from the discussion?
[*]I see now, you want to take a process we already have, and redo it the exact same way simply because you think it makes sense to do what we are already doing, but you want to pretend you thought of it.
[*]Ever here of the CBO? The OMB? Do you understand that that is exactly what they do?
[*]We do that to.
Amazing, not only do you not understand the issues, you don't even understand the process, and are so brilliant that you actually came up with a process we developed 200 years ago, even though you think the world is a lot different now.

yes, it is still the same democratic process and yes because the world is different
and we are in a different place with things, the process is going to adapt and
go a little further now. you are right, it is both things.

We are much more diverse, and we have means now of representing our views by self-managed affiliated groups more than just the two major parties, and we have the internet and a network of schools with departments to study and address specific fields and issues.

So we could take this democratic process a step further and go into self-governing
groups and still network and communicate/establish policies through govt representation.

We can do both if we use our resources and personal abilities to the best positive potential.
And not waste them fighting over differences, hint hint.

Calling you an arrogant idiot doesn't even begin to adequately describe you.

this is where I say "c'mon silly you know better than that"

you know you should not crack at someone as being immature/calling someone else immature, and then turn around and say things that sound like you're being immature too.
that is just going to keep going in circles, and you know this!

for someone who claims not to care and who ignores other people,
you are not ignoring it. clearly you care or you wouldn't keep trying
to correct things. So let's keep correcting things more, and jab at each other less.

you and DT are both of strong minds and convictions, so I can see how
you would set each other off if you hit too close on something. like two
keys right next to each other on the piano a half step off, this makes you clash
when you get in each other's faces.

sorry to see that your strengths become a weakness in situations like this.
you could either be both right about yourselves, so you are both wrong that the
other is not capable or willing to be mature; or you are both right that the
other is egging it on a little and denying responsibility for it, so you are both wrong
for not admitting your parts in this respectively.

I find DT is quite forgiving in being able to discuss things this deeply without
seeing proof of God and not imposing conditions as a reason for rejecting
faith-based views or discussion.

And QW I have seen you can be a bigger person than this, so may I please ask help
to forgive whatever insult or negative perception you have with DT for it to stop
affecting you and your responses on here. why keep insisting
you don't care when you keep responding. of course you care, there is no
reason to let false or misperceptions of someone continue, where these can be
corrected. so let's work on that, not give up and say it's the other person.

Do we need to start a new thread and talk about this political consensus process?
If I copy the msgs from DT to a new thread, can we take this to another
place and hash it out there in full. I still would like to finish hearing
out everything you and DT have to say, even if there is intermittent remarks
in between which is a side part of the process. And let Gracie have her thread back
for discussion and Q&A focused on how to read and interpret the Bible, okay?

Sorry Gracie, my fault too.
I will post another msg about how this actually ties in with the questions you asked!

 

[emilynghiem]

Congratulations to Quantum Windbag on being the 1st to qualify for the ignore list. This list is reserved for stalkers, trolls, flamers and other malcontents who provide nothing of value. Have a nice life.

This is what people who claim to be adults act like?

And this msg is from someone who claims not to care and not to respond?
C'mon QW you know better than this.

I like all your msgs where you respond with detailed information.
I will reply regarding what you said about spiritual healing and shepherd/guides
where this applies to Gracie's questions.

As for politics, should we stop replying here on Gracie's thread, and pick up on another one? Can you and DT agree to keep discussing the topics, while also putting
up with some of these cracks back and forth on the side. I'd rather not have
that detract so much, but if that's part of your hashing-out process I'm willing to take
that extra grease with the french fries for the sake of having the french fries.

DT are you okay putting up with that so we can hash out the ideas you posted?
You are really good at cutting out the excess fat and calories in my replies, can you put up
with whatever QW replies are loaded with to get the content out of that? You may think this is an unnecessary fight, but DT, in reality if we are going to present this to people coming from diverse views we might as well practice hashing it out here, where QW is at least a reasonable person willing to express objections while jabs are also being exchanged. that is the reality of the process and what it takes to address both content and personalities both. if we were going to present the points to a neutral computer that is one thing. but to human beings, we should be able to communicate with people 10 times more challenging than QW. I will try to post msgs to Gracie to get back on track, and then start a separate thread for this church-state stuff where you and QW both have key points to make. If jabs continue I'm willing to take that as part of the process and practice we could use anyway.
This ain't nothing compared with the times I put prolife and prochoice people together.
If we can't learn to manage conflicts online, we'll get blown out of the room in real life.
Thanks and i agree to start a new thread for this.
Thanks Gracie QW and FoxFyre also!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Congratulations to Quantum Windbag on being the 1st to qualify for the ignore list. This list is reserved for stalkers, trolls, flamers and other malcontents who provide nothing of value. Have a nice life.

This is what people who claim to be adults act like?

That you are unaware that adults regularly impose timeouts on children who don't know how to behave themselves comes as no surprise whatsoever.

Are you unaware that I am older than you are?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Congratulations to Quantum Windbag on being the 1st to qualify for the ignore list. This list is reserved for stalkers, trolls, flamers and other malcontents who provide nothing of value. Have a nice life.

This is what people who claim to be adults act like?

And this msg is from someone who claims not to care and not to respond?
C'mon QW you know better than this.

I like all your msgs where you respond with detailed information.
I will reply regarding what you said about spiritual healing and shepherd/guides
where this applies to Gracie's questions.

As for politics, should we stop replying here on Gracie's thread, and pick up on another one? Can you and DT agree to keep discussing the topics, while also putting
up with some of these cracks back and forth on the side. I'd rather not have
that detract so much, but if that's part of your hashing-out process I'm willing to take
that extra grease with the french fries for the sake of having the french fries.

DT are you okay putting up with that so we can hash out the ideas you posted?
You are really good at cutting out the excess fat and calories in my replies, can you put up
with whatever QW replies are loaded with to get the content out of that? You may think this is an unnecessary fight, but DT, in reality if we are going to present this to people coming from diverse views we might as well practice hashing it out here, where QW is at least a reasonable person willing to express objections while jabs are also being exchanged. that is the reality of the process and what it takes to address both content and personalities both. if we were going to present the points to a neutral computer that is one thing. but to human beings, we should be able to communicate with people 10 times more challenging than QW. I will try to post msgs to Gracie to get back on track, and then start a separate thread for this church-state stuff where you and QW both have key points to make. If jabs continue I'm willing to take that as part of the process and practice we could use anyway.
This ain't nothing compared with the times I put prolife and prochoice people together.
If we can't learn to manage conflicts online, we'll get blown out of the room in real life.
Thanks and i agree to start a new thread for this.
Thanks Gracie QW and FoxFyre also!

That was me mocking the guy that wants to impose rules on how I speak because he is mature.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Gracie and QW: I see some pts in QW msg below that tie in with your question
about how can God be in humanoid form, and where ppl have valid objections to this.

Overall, I find even the interactions on this thread mimic the process of God's truth
being incarnated in our human realm: all of us start with our beliefs and understanding of God's truth, then this is manifested in our thoughts perceptions and words (and a process ensues of resolving competing or conflicting views, where forgiveness allows corrections and greater understanding to be received); and where there is agreement to establish
points of common truth, then these can be put into action and influence the physical world.

1. the issue of guides
QW makes a strong point warning against anyone who tries to take on God's authority.
This is a valid objection, that none of us should ever claim or try to be Jesus' role.

So what is the difference and relationship between God, Jesus being God in human form,
and where we are? How to explain the relationship between man and God's laws?

Some people may cite or quote the laws externally as just a secular source.
Others may actually commit to follow the laws by conscience, and enforce them
ourselves, like how police officers do, where they give order in the name of the law.
People in govt positions may be vested with authority to speak on behalf of government.

The more we understand the different levels or degrees that laws become
embodied or enforced by man, this may help to understand how God's laws
are embodied in Jesus as both divine and human at the same time.

What makes Jesus different is he represents the pure embodiment of God's authority of law; while the rest of us may embrace and embody the law, but only speak from our
limited perspective which is personally biased. we rely on establishing the spirit of Truth and Justice (which God and Jesus represent) by agreement in Christ, where we forgive and correct our own flaws and biases in the process of establishing truth that is greater than any of our individual understanding alone. So this is what it means to invoke Jesus authority to receive God's truth and will, and not rely on our personal will.

Jesus also had human limitations while incarnated on earth, as you can see in his
exchange with the woman who answered him back (even the dog can eat of his
master's crumbs that fall from the table) where Jesus accepted the clarification.
The difference is he is spiritually perfect or "mature" while we are still going through
the process starting with Adam and Eve of becoming mature in our understanding
of knowledge and God's truth. The role of Jesus is to fulfill that process by reconciling
our will and understanding with God, but through free choice and reason, not by force.
We learn to accept the gift of forgiveness freely, by comparing the consequences if we do not forgive and live in a cycle of retribution under fear of judgment and punishment;
vs. if we forgive and correct conflicts freely out of love and agreement in truth.

So QW is right, the proper way is to recognize Jesus authority
and NOT try to take on that role ourselves. We can better align and enforce laws of justice in keeping with the spirit of Truth and Justice by forgiveness and correction, which allows
Jesus authority to "enter into" and govern our relations, where the truth is coming through our interactions to be established, but not from any one of us imposing our individual will.

Again what makes Jesus unique, what it means for Jesus to be perfect like God was he was not born with conditions or sins from the past affecting him, as all of us carry our biases.
We have issues to resolve with our family or past relations that if we don't, these get projected onto our future relations so we have more to resolve with each other. Jesus did not have any such issues with any person personally, which would have biased his focus, but spoke with God's authority for all humanity. He may have spoken differently to the temple pharisees using scripture; vs the illiterate fishermen and farmers using parables they could understand for spiritual concepts; but he spoke for all people in all these contexts. The rest of us can only speak for ourselves; we get in trouble trying to generalize.

Jesus was God's pure will incarnated without those conditions from family or birth;
so when he was unjustly sacrificed for accusations of blasphemy even though he spoke the truth, this was not justified retribution for past wrongs "paid back" because he did not commit any. so any debt that is owed are "paid forward" for all humanity. when we invoke this spirit of Jesus, instead of asking for retribution for past debts, we receive corrections that pay forward and prevent problems in the future from continuing to repeat.

So you will see a difference between people who only read the Bible and the laws in a secular way, where this is kept external. And people who internalize the laws to various degrees, either commit to follow them by conscience through Christ, as a law-abiding citizen agrees to follow laws; or fully embody embrace and enforce them as an officer of the law or a govt or military officer may commit their duty by the Constitution as their oath.

Jesus is different in that he represents the actual embodiment of God's laws and authority.

The divine laws of Justice already existed in heaven, but then the laws were given in writing by Moses, and then fufilled in spirit with Jesus incarnated in our human realm.

This is sort of like the natural laws of human nature already existing universally,
and then they are given in writing through the Founding Fathers who wrote the
Constitution and Bill of Rights that make these statutory; and now we are all trying
to invoke the spirit of the Constitution to reform and fulfill what our govt is designed
to do, but instead of there just being one person to speak the law for everyone,
this is going to be established by agreement, by consensus and free will of all people united in spirit, so it isn't coming from any one of us, but clearly from God's universal authority.

we cannot get there by dictating and assuming authority to speak for God or others.
we get there by mutual forgiveness and correction so we receive the truth
by agreeing together, as we unite in Christ, not divided by male or female
or Jew or Gentiles, but one in the spirit of universal truth that includes us all.

2. second the process of spiritual healing
again, the people who are gifted in praying for spiritual healing aren't doing the healing themselves which comes from God through Christ authority only. the mind and body are designed to heal themselves under normal circumstances, so the spiritual healing is focused on removing the blocks caused by unforgiveness which are preventing that
healing energy from flowing through.

After properly identifying and asking forgiveness for the memories, emotions, perceptions or issues or fears in people's minds and spirit, then our bodies and relations can also receiving healing which is natural from God, freely given for the asking by our free will where this is neither forced on us or a condition but a natural consequence by cause and effect. the authority to remove demonic blocks is invoked in Jesus name, and no person is supposed to try to assume Jesus role. (this is where the Jehovah's witness and Church of Christ also are correct in objecting if people falsely claiming authority to "command" God's will instead of submitting to Jesus as God's authority)

I agree with QW there is an important distinction to make between letting the Holy Spirit enter and guide us by receiving forgiveness and healing through Christ Jesus, and NOT trying to act as a guide in terms of dictating out of assumed authority.

If people do this wrong, that is where the confusion and objections come to the idea of Jesus being God incarnated, because people fear it means someone abusing authority,
or "trying to play God" which is not what it means for Jesus to be God incarnated in man.

more replies to QW below.
thanks!

When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know, the end result is tyranny and oppression, no matter how holy the motives. Mighty little force is needed to control a man whose mind has been hoodwinked; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything -- you can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him.

Where people freely choose to affiliate and follow a guiding leader for a particular purpose,
I believe we can organize all such groups and cover a lot of ground that way. you are right,
that no one group should claim to speak for represent or dictate for others.
As long as this is done freely, any misguided biases or conflicts can be corrected between groups checking and balancing each other. And again, where people are acting out of unforgiveness and divisive fear, that is going to cause problems if these are not resolved.
it is the spirit of how the group is set up and guided, that makes a difference.

Every single person that sets himself up as a guide is starting on the road to tyranny. Anyone that ever tells anyone else not to read something just because they think it is bad for the is taking a step on the road to tyranny. You do that, and you end up in the wrong place.

Every single time.

The Gifts are split among the Body for a reason, the same thing occurs with the fife fold ministerial gifts, they are split for a reason. No one person is supposed to lead the flock, it is not Biblical, and thus will always result in error, just like avoiding fellowship with the Body entirely will.

I actually don't have to be specific, I can simply point to history, and all the problems that result whenever one person suddenly becomes a leader. Lots of people like to point to the fact that Jesus called us sheep, sheep do not have a social structure where one sheep is the leader, which is why shepherds use goats to lead sheep to the slaughter.

We have a Shepherd, we do not need guides.

The Bahai and Buddhist, for example, have emphasized independent investigation to prevent this fatal flaw from people taking things on faith by authority of others.
Buddha warned against indoctrination for much the same reasons you cite, and so did Mohammad teach there is no compulsion in religion.
It is where people don't follow this wisdom and start making cultish cliques or poltiical parties to compete with other groups for control, that this problem keeps happening.

There are other groups that don't have this problem.

the Bahai started a nonprofit that trains people how to facilitate forums for sharing dialogue in a healing atmosphere, using guidelines where the moderators do have to guide the participants to stay within those rules to keep the forum emotionally safe, and to avoid generalizations that would start people acting defensively. it is more like teaching by letting people practice how to speak for themselves without reacting to each other.

So maybe this is more like you said about being guided by the "holy spirit" since the focus of the forums is on healing, and not about dictating how people should believe or think. the rules help structure the dialogue where it stays constructive and helps people express their own beliefs without fear of censure or negative judgment or attack by anyone else.

Why is it important? Because Satan knows that, if he can get us to stop praying, he can take over the world. Prayer is what gives us a connection to God. The question you should be asking is why anyone would have a problem with that, even a non believer, especially if the people praying go out of their way to not be offensive.

what if someone prays out of ill will for retribution?
That is not in the spirit of Christ Jesus which invokes God's love and truth
unconditionally for all people, but would be tainted by selfish fears don't you think?

I find that the temptation from Satan is to divide and reject by unforgiveness.
to fear we cannot resolve things, so we must judge and push people away.
thus we are divided and conquered by manipulation of our own fears.

what joins us with God through Christ is prayer for forgiveness.
for asking help to forgive when we are overrun with fear and unforgiveness
greater than our own will.

I agree with you QW overall, and just would clarify this point as to
what makes prayer important. we connect through prayer in the spirit of
forgiveness, so that is the key point that influences of Satan work hardest to
attack, to tempt us to hold onto unforgiveness so God's will is blocked
until we agree to give that up.

One thing that has been drilled into me since I was a child, I might not agree with what you are saying, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it. I truly believe that it has made the world a better place, which is why I refuse to allow political correctness to go unchallenged.

I hope this was not drilled into since childhood by a "guide"! ha ha
seriously, I hope your commitment is uncondtional and by the holy spirit of
healing grace and correction through forgiveness in christ jesus alone.

I hope and pray it is NOT conditioned on some political outcome
where you start this very busy of being under mandates.
it is good to respect the laws and to enforce them with commitment to truth
and justice, but still, it must be done through the spirit of justice for all
which is universal in Jesus, and not just for our personal political motives that are
limited and biased locally. this may explain why you go after DT as the enemy
while I include him as an ally. maybe you are reacting to conditions instilled in you,
and some of these cause you to divide from others, and are not totally universal?

could you be demonstrating some of the reasons you warn against local
guides that are not fully open to receiving guidance by the Holy Spirit?
can we pray about this and make sure you are not enforcing any
conditions that would get in the way of what you are trying to achieve?

I actually don't care if laws are enforced inconsistently. I don't want a person who steals because they are hungry to get the same punishment a person who steals because they want to steal gets, even if they steal the same thing. I just don't want laws specifically written in a way that they are impossible to obey, or that exempt one group of people while applying to another. Compassion is something I can live with, arbitrariness gives the government way to much power.

I agree with what you mean. what I mean by consistent is
applying retributive justice to those who live by and invoke this for others,
and applying restorative justice to those who live by this and are thus willing to
make amends and corrections and restitution as fair by the circumstances.
it seems we both agree on the restorative justice, if you show mercy in mitigating
circumstances; where we differ is you are also quick to give retribution back to
people you feel are invoking that, I tend to answer that with restorative approaches
and hope they respond and will resolve things under the other system of redressing wrongs.

as for laws written unfairly where they can't be obeyed or enforced consistently,
that is where i apply restorative justice to correct these to stop the wrongs from repeating.

that is where I proposed formulating a system of resolving conflicting laws by consensus,
and even including and delineating the areas where people cannot agree religiously
so these are taken into account. I hope you see the benefit in working this out,
and especially with people who don't agree or communicate perfectly; if we can
work it out even with our conflicts, we can develop this to help others do the same
even where they completely conflict and do not get along at all.

In order to diagnose people spiritually we first have to be able to consistently heal people spiritually. I fully believe in the gift of healing, but I really don't see much evidence that anyone has it.

I am amazed at your understanding, that you already know that healing does exist as a gift even before you have seen evidence of how it works. that means you have vision and not closed minded just because you haven't seen proof first. thanks for this.
[I hope similar you can see how someone may have ability to envision where
consensus can be reached even before there is any proof it is possible.]

again it's not the people who are doing the spiritual healing, but they
diagnose the points of unforgiveness that need prayer to forgive
and so God's healing energy can flow through where it was blocked before.
and people gifted in deliverance prayer are invoking Jesus authority, not
doing this themselves as demons only obey Jesus authority no earthly person.

there are resources posted on my signature line under
http://www.spiritual-healing.us
I am glad to start a separate thread to discuss this with you and KG
or I can send you these books if you are interested.

what you warned against false guides TOTALLY applies to this field
the priests who try to take on the role of Jesus get in big trouble,
even die of cancer and other complications from the spiritual attacks.
this is not the way to do this, but the catholic church was teaching it that way.

the people I know who practice free safe and effective spiritual healing
work in teams and invoke the authority of Christ Jesus.
they are just doing the counseling and the praying.

I believe it is important to prove the difference medically and scientifically
not only to make healing prayer accessible to all people who need it,
but also to get rid of the false and dangerous false healing practices
that endanger people by either rejecting science and medicine
or harming the people who come in direct contact with demonic forces.
this should not be played with. it is like playing with cancerous
toxins which require protection and not direct exposure.
I hope you are interested in following up on this.
thanks QW

 

[emilynghiem]

That was me mocking the guy that wants to impose rules on how I speak because he is mature.

Hey, if I can see there is more depth to both of you, and put aside the mocking comments and not start in on that too, you can both do that, as you already have.

You both put up with me being "less than perfect" and posting long msgs that DT and others have to weed through to get rid of the access, which is probably as annoying as the snide remarks in its own way. if you can forgive me why can't you forgive each other?

you are both clearly better than me at some things, so if you don't jump on me for my flaws which are glaring, can you please be kinder and patient and give each space too?

yes, we all have flaws and annoying ones at that.
I'm sorry for this, too.

I appreciate your forbearance in accommodating me
and just ask that you extend the same and accommodate each other, flaws and all.

I LOVE what everyone is contributing here, even in opposing views.
Please keep going with that, and not so much with the jabs.

That's my only issue with you, I really wish you'd refrain from jabbing
at each other that make you look like you are trying to be a jerk.
This does not do justice to the content of what you know and say,
can we please stick to that? thanks and let me know if we
need to start another thread, can the issue of church-state
consensus and medical proof of spiritual healing be a separate thread?

I don't want to bore poor Gracie with the political depth
that this could get into. I will post one more thing about
ways to interpret the Cross, but if that gets into more
politics we definitely need to start a different thread!

Thanks QW if you're going to ignore DT then ignore
DT. be bigger than that and don't respond the same to snap back.
do you really want to look like the upset girlfriend who calls her boyfriend
up just to give him the silent treatment! know what I mean?

I think God is testing you, this must be some kind of
process for working through something that tempts
you to act negative where you defeat your own purpose
instead of in a postive way that is more effective.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi QW and Gracie also:
I was trying to find a certain msg from Gracie I was going to respond to.
I meant to post the minimal scriptures in the Bible I would recommend to people
who were overwhelmed by the whole thing.

Gracie: the very minimum that works for me is

A. getting a red-letter Bible and reading ALL the words of Jesus, and not skipping any of those.

B. understanding the SPIRIT of the laws as love of truth, justice with mercy,
healing grace, charity and peace for all humanity
[I already mentioned the OT was about tragic history of war and death by corruption of "the letter of the law" while
the NT is about renewed life and freedom by living by the "spirit of the law"; and the point of Christ Jesus
is to move from retributive justice in the OT to Restorative Justice in the NT]

C. For the three commandments that summarize the whole of the law
1. loving God with all our hearts minds and souls
3. loving our neighbor as ourselves
2. loving one another as Jesus loves us, which joins the love of God and love of man as ONE, where we love each other as GOD loves us which is unconditionally all-inclusive.

Notes:
this corresponds to the three persons of God/Jesus/HolySpirit
1. first person is God manifested directly which is infinite/universal love/truth/wisdom
2. second person is God manifested through Jesus Christ or the Word of God/laws embodied by conscience
3. third person is God manifested in relations with each other through the Holy Spirit
where collectively all the people are joined in harmony as one humanity or church/body/bride of Christ

And since you mention wisdom/compassion
those are the Buddhist equivalent of the two great commandments
in Buddhism all the teachings are based on
developing one's wisdom (another name for God or God's truth)
developing one's compassion (another name for charity as the greatest love of all)
which correspond to loving God and loving neighbors as Christ.
Since Jesus fulfills both the scriptural laws and the natural laws, such as given in Buddhism,
then receiving Christ fulfills these Buddhist teachings/Dharma as well.
See Colossians 1:16 that all authorities invisible or visible are
created by and given to the Lord, so Jesus is God's governing authority of Justice
fulfilling all laws whether religious or secular. to be Lord of lords means to
be the one central authority over all other lords or laws of humanity.

In Buddhism the three refuges which are the equivalent of the trinity are
the Buddha (one who knows, ie has wisdom or knowledge of God's law/truth)
the Dharma (the law or teachings, which in Christianity are given in the Word of God that Jesus embodies and fulflils)
the Sangha (the peaceful order, which is the equivalent of the church body united in harmony through the Holy Spirit)

======================================================
Now if you want to go further:
the three stages of salvation becoming manifested
1. receiving one another as children of God who come in the name of the Lord,
so that when we receive a child of God, we receive Jesus also
2. receiving Jesus to receive the Father
3. where anyone calling upon the name of the Father is saved
So most people who understand this, focus on receiving Jesus in order to receive salvation.
secular Gentiles like me who go through a process of understanding with our minds, as a result of receiving grace, may focus on receiving Jesus "in relations with others" in order to fulfill this in real life experiences and sharing, not just in spirit on an abstract level.

As for scriptures that I recommend not already referenced above
* Matthew 5:44 about praying for even those who persecute and oppress
* James 5:16 about confessing our faults one to another and praying for one another that we may be healed
* Matthew 18:15-20 about redressing trespasses or rebukes directly with each other,
and/or bringing 1-2 witnesses to establish truth in order to restore good faith relations.
and whatever we pray and agree upon in Christ Jesus that touches the earth it is done by our Father in heaven (agreement locally brings global peace and harmony collectively)

Gracie the point of sticking to these 3 scriptures is they can be applied to resolve whatever else comes up with anyone.
whether that person uses the Bible or not. by resolving issues with each person, then you will establish what is true and important to understand at any time or circumstance.
It seems Foxfyre gives very clear answers that make sense to you when you study or ask about the Bible.
As long as you have one good friend you can trust to explain things, you can go from there.
The mistake Adam and Eve made was not checking with God to clarify conflicting information they were getting from a source with wrongful intent.
If they had asked God, maybe he would have reminded them or explained, before they went too far before they were ready to understand the knowledge they were tapping into.
So in this case, you have other friends you can ask what things mean so you can make sure you get an interpretation or answer that makes sense to you.
As long as you ask around and resolve any conflicts or questions as they arise, you can handle any new information that is out there.
The mistakes we make are usually some form of not resolving conflicts but holding on to fear or unforgiveness which blocks our judgment from realizing the whole truth.
Especially rejecting and dividing to try to suppress or avoid conflict instead of resolving it, which is why I push for conflict resolution and consensus.

I believe this process of rebuke and correction
is where QW and DT got caught in some conflict, made more complex if DT is not a Christian believer but was trying to hold QW to scripture, and if QW was out of line with scripture then should not a fellow believer or witness help to establish a resolution instead of someone outside that faith, especially
if QW sees the rebuttals from DT as "mocking the faith" since DT is not a fellow believer.

See below, where I found this msg instead:

Okay, since it has been brought up, QW and DT, Jesus NEVER insulted somebody by calling him names for what he did or did not believe or for being wrong or for sinning. He reserved his negative adjectives for those who preached rules and laws and presumed to accuse, judge, and condemn others when they themselves failed to understand and follow the intent of the Law. In other words he criticized those who would dishonestly harm others physically, emotionally, or materially in the name of God.

In fact in Matthew 5, in what we have dubbed 'The Sermon on the Mount" he ordered much caution in accusing and criticizing our fellow humans:

Matthew 5:22 But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire.​

Now as with much of the scriptures, we don't have to take that 100% literally with our 21st Century understanding, but the intended message is pretty clear. It is a bad and dangerous thing to presume such superiority over another person and we sin when we do so.

In truth the 'sermon' was probably not a single sermon but rather an illustration of the kind of setting Jesus used in his ministry and was a collection of 'pericopes' (short, easy to understand sayings) that the ancient rabbis used in their teachings and were remembered and pulled together for the compiled manuscripts that would become the four Gospels of the New Testament.

I do not call people names for what they believe either, I call out people who try to dictate my behavior based on their interpretation of the Bible, especially when they also make it clear they do not believe it themselves. I also reject the notion that I should treat the people who mock God and my belief in Him with respect just because people kind find verses about me treating believers with respect.

Dear QW:
1. I get that you weren't trying to call DT names or insults (such as arrogant whatever that was remark you used) based on his beliefs or nonbeliefs,
but you were protesting "his behavior" that if he is not a believer in the Bible then where is his place/authority/intention if he tries to hold you as a believer to what he cites from the Bible
2. I understand this came across to you as mocking, like other people who try to discredit someone unfairly by citing the Bible not for correction but to look foolish or bad
3. and lastly you see that teachings about treating fellow believers with respect is different from treating people with respect who are either nonbelievers or mockers or both

First I'm sorry that anything DT or others said came across to you as mocking your faith.
You have a right to your feelings, even though I don't think DT meant to mock the faith per se except if the purpose was to get to you personally.
If DT meant to mock you that seems more likely it was personal because clearly you clash with each other as two equally strong minds and wills.
I believe DT was sincerely trying to speak your own language in trying to get you to stop talking negatively in ways that seemed against common understanding of Christianity.

I do see there is some personal dislike or disrespect between you two going on which I regret and hope will change in time.
You both have excellent points and qualities so I'd rather focus on your strengths and forgive the weaknesses you also bring out in each other for whatever reason.

As such, I thank you and DT even more for putting up with this while trying to
answer the posts and stick to content. If you repulse each other that much,
your patience and tolerance speaks volumes that you are as civil as you are!
Maybe I should not complain about little cracks back and forth that are minor if you REALLY bother each other that much!

But I am concerned that you resolve your grievance about feeling your faith was mocked.
I understand that is hurtful, regardless if it was not intended or if it was,
and you deserve not to carry either anger or righteous indignance with you from
one thread/post to the next but this should be resolved for the benefit of both of you and everyone
else here who might otherwise be deprived of your intelligent discourse you could be sharing!

2. for point 2 I see a little of both. No, I don't think DT meant to discredit the faith by trying to show a contradiction;
but yes, DT was personally expressing an issue with you, not just trying to correct the problem but address you personally and you were also doing the same.
as I said before this seems mutual, so I could not fault one without faulting the other.

since you were both doing this, I asked you both to stop mutually so this can be dropped.

when I cite scripture to try to resolve things, I do so out of respect and trying to explain to the person on their terms;
I can only guess this is what DT was trying to do with you
If there was mocking going on, it was between you personally, and not about your faith

3. as for believers and unbelievers.
if you have made the commitment to follow God through Christ and forgive 77 times 77
then the burden is more on you and me to forgive first and try to reach our neighbor to do the same. If someone has not made the commitment to love and forgive others as God/Jesus loves and forgives us, then I cannot speak for those people. When there are conditions on what they will or will not forgive, I can ask forgiveness but may not get it.
We as Christians are supposed to strive or ask help to be unconditional in forgiveness.

QW this is one of the hardest crosses to bear. nobody I know likes to be put in this position.
to ask help with forgiveness when clearly we do not see the other person deserves it.
QW how can we ask of our neighbors what we are not willing to do ourselves?

I'm sorry you still feel so mocked and insulted by what transpired earlier.
If it really is important to you, can you show me the thread where DT walked away
after making some false/unfair insinuations. if this would help you resolve whatever
issue you have, we could start a separate thread and hash that one out, and whatever
went wrong here, and make sure we get all that out of your system so it doesn't keep
coming back again and again.

If it's any comfort at all to you, I can tell you worse cases of people having to obey God and forgive things that were more insufferable than this. They also did not want to forgive.
but it was not good for them to hold on to unforgiveness. So they had to let it go.

In this case, even where DT was mocking you personally as you did so in return back and forth, I don't see DT meant to mock your faith but was trying to speak your own language to communicate with you. If I am wrong, i am sorry.

I do believe that it is better to try to talk with believers like you by using Scripture, whether you are a believer or not, as long as you don't cite it incorrectly to serve as stumbling block.
I can see how that can get convoluted.

In spirit, I believe DT is a fellow believer in Justice and from responses and tolerance shown toward me and my msgs, quite forgiving and willing to look at good pts of agreement and look past things where I coudl have been personally judged myself.
So I don't consider DT a nonbeliever in spirit, but just secular in which laws are used to communicate beliefs. I believe we all are pretty much responding to each other in the spirit of truth and justice, and there is just some personal clash between you and DT that sets each other off. If anyone does, I am concerned that you have an issue with forgiveness if you don't share the faith it can transform the relationship and bring correction also. or else you would have forgiven this by now. I can't tell. It could be that we need to backtrack and resolve whatever issue or thread that was that first went unresolved. And maybe after that you would not keep reacting this way. Do we need to go back and resolve that more fully?

Please let me know if THAT is the problem
and it isn't about forgiveness in general.
Either way let's work it out and not pretend it doesn't matter
when clearly it does bother you. So let's fix it okay?
Love, Emily

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi Gracie I found this msg of yours but not the other I was looking for.
In terms of fear of God, this means different things to different people
a. some mean "reverence" or "respect" and don't mean a negative type of fear.
b. some mean fear but in a healthy or humbling, not negative debilitating way,
that you should have fear when not running across a street.
you should have fear about eating food left out which may not be safe.
so in that sense we should fear to do something wrongful that goes against what is good.

Ok...I have made a decision and I think those who have been so kind in assisting me deserve an explanation the best I can give. It may not make sense...then again, maybe it will. And I have a request as well. I still will need help from time to time if I think of something or read or hear something and I am not sure of an answer. I can google, yes. But I can ask here, too. However, that will come in time...and no clear cut answer of WHEN or even IF.

I have decided to not read the bible any further. The more I read, the more the relationship with the childlike awe and friendliness and trust and comfort becomes threatented. I am familiar with some of the books of the bible, but I have never read it from front to back...nor do I plan to.

My relationship with God has always been between He and I. I chat with Him in my garden..or under the stars. I feel Him in everything I touch...my crystals (He made them so beautiful), His birds that sing to me, His bugs that come visit me, the trees and leaves whispering to me. I have always just talked to Him as I talk to you, to my friends, to people I am comfortable around. Just people. I never understood the phrase "I am a God fearing woman/man" because I never feared Him. I love Him and I know He loves me. Reading the bible will change all that. I will become more "aware" of what He is, what He can do, how I should be more humble perhaps or wrongs I have committed, etc. In short....the bible is the apple. I want to stay the innocent child in chatting with the God I love...not read things that will scare me or turn me away from how I always have been with Him. Nothing could do that, but once you see something...you can't UNsee it, if you know what I mean. So taking another bite out of that apple...I will become like Adam and Eve and the bible to me is that apple tree.

With that said..I DO want to read portions of it that show His compassion and mercy and love for His children. Us. Me. What gospels would you recommend for me to read? Proverbs? I like that one...full of wisdom and common sense. But what others are there I am not aware of?

REVISED: honestly Gracie I think I came to my understanding of God, Jesus and the Bible
closer to the way you did, by having the understanding of God first, and then reading the Bible in that context.
It was not from reading the Bible that I got a real life understanding of god and forgiveness, but this came from
working things out with forgiveness directly in relations with other people in my life I had conflicts/differences with to resolve.
That is why you'll see me encourage and urge people in conflict to resolve things with forgiveness
so the true power of God's truth and love is understood, made real and brought into our lives and relations.

I do want you to find answers to your questions about God's love in the Bible,
so I will post some key scriptures and see if that helps you to find what you are looking for.

i learned by practicing forgiveness in real relations and seeing how much it changed
things. after i understood that's what jesus and the bible means, THEN i could read it and it made sense to me. if you pray directly for understanding of truth, and pray to forgive and understand the people around you, then you can see how it works in action. the best way i know to understand the absolute power of forgiveness and love is to practice it.

the scriptures i listed in the previous msg are about applying and invoking the spirit of christ in relations with others so you can see it for yourself. Gracie it's a gift you already see God in all the lovely things in creation. if you can see God's love and truth in what we share with each other, that is where the Kingdom of God is among us. Thank you for sharing!