Community > General Religion Chat

Previous 1 2 … 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 … 35 36 Next

Topic: What is the "mark of the beast"?
tribo Joined Mon 05/12/08 Posts: 5577	Sun 10/05/08 03:47 PM
Oh no, it wasnt an agenda driven question. I was simply wondering if there were less female followers simply because arguably the faith can be a little edgy as it relates to women. Not everyone thinks that but many do or they excuse or rationalize it in whatever way they can. So I was curious but it would be difficult to determine and I guess you would need to do it by denomination. Catholics are probably the dominant the world over correct? o ok - if you google this sight it will give yu that info K, i thought maybe you were trying to see if women outnumbered the men because of him being a father figure. my mistake books.google.com/books?isbn=030647770X...

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Sun 10/05/08 04:05 PM Edited by Jeanniebean on Sun 10/05/08 04:14 PM
Why is it free will if you use the nouns "your higher self" and "the prime source" but it's slavery if you use the nouns "god" or "lord"? It is all about the realization that you are God because ultimately you are sustained by that Prime Source and connected to it while still maintaining your person, your desires, your interests, your experiences etc. People who worship a God outside of them self don't truly realize the total oneness and connection they have with all that is. Prime Source (God) is within you, experiencing creation and life through you and has its being in you. Prime Source lives through you and through all of its manifestations and creations. All things have (or channel) varying degrees of consciousness. I just have a fundamental disagreement with the idea of being "split" into two (or more) separate parts. I am just me. I don't see it as being "split." I am what I am. I am my higher self expressing itself as a human incarnation. I am not split off from myself. I am myself. There are no "parts" to "me". Yes, I "have" a body and I "have" a mind and I "have" emotions and I "have" a personality and I "have" experiences and I "have" memories" and I "have" perceptions, etc., etc.. But those are not "parts" of me, they are "posessions" of mine. They can be removed without any change to "me". I (this incarnation) have many "parts." I call them aspects of my person. They are called psyche's. Personalities within me. Kind of like multiple personalities only we all are aware of each other and we are not "split" personalities. We communicate with each other and we share memories. Neither am I "split" from my higher self. I share its wisdom and advice when I am open enough to channel that information. My incarnation here (the little self) cannot contain all that my higher self (the true self) is but it can communicate with me when needed and I with it. I don't even think of prime source as "sustaining me" or "being within me" or "experienceing life and creation through me" or "living through me" or anything like that. I think of prime source as being me. To me there is simply one indivisible unit that is "me", with no parts or divisions or separations. It's not even "all me". It's just "me". Then are you separate from everyone else and feel that you are completely self sustaining? Are you God? If so, who is everyone else? Are they connected or disconnected from you? In a sense, you are correct, because ultimately "I am" prime source. But then so is everybody as we are all one in that respect. If I were to follow all of my connections to the final being in existence, that which we call God, I would find that to be me.... but I am not obligated to remain in that state of awareness. A soul traveler who travels to the height of God consciousness rarely stays there. There are many more interesting places to be, and many more interesting things to create. You see, everything is one and there are only points of consciousness throughout the body of the one. Those points of consciousness are living conscious beings. Even stars and planets are living and conscious. JB

Krimsa Joined Fri 04/25/08 Posts: 9960	Sun 10/05/08 04:12 PM
Oh no, it wasnt an agenda driven question. I was simply wondering if there were less female followers simply because arguably the faith can be a little edgy as it relates to women. Not everyone thinks that but many do or they excuse or rationalize it in whatever way they can. So I was curious but it would be difficult to determine and I guess you would need to do it by denomination. Catholics are probably the dominant the world over correct? o ok - if you google this sight it will give yu that info K, i thought maybe you were trying to see if women outnumbered the men because of him being a father figure. my mistake books.google.com/books?isbn=030647770X... Who's your daddy? Isnt that what everyone was asking Jesus. Sorry bad joke. Okay thanks Tribo. I will check it out. Its not like Im super interested but mildy.

tribo Joined Mon 05/12/08 Posts: 5577	Sun 10/05/08 04:23 PM
Oh no, it wasnt an agenda driven question. I was simply wondering if there were less female followers simply because arguably the faith can be a little edgy as it relates to women. Not everyone thinks that but many do or they excuse or rationalize it in whatever way they can. So I was curious but it would be difficult to determine and I guess you would need to do it by denomination. Catholics are probably the dominant the world over correct? o ok - if you google this sight it will give yu that info K, i thought maybe you were trying to see if women outnumbered the men because of him being a father figure. my mistake books.google.com/books?isbn=030647770X... Who's your daddy? Isnt that what everyone was asking Jesus. Sorry bad joke. Okay thanks Tribo. I will check it out. Its not like Im super interested but mildy. Ye, same here.

SkyHook5652 Joined Sat 08/23/08 Posts: 4063	Sun 10/05/08 04:58 PM
SkyHook said: I don't even think of prime source as "sustaining me" or "being within me" or "experienceing life and creation through me" or "living through me" or anything like that. I think of prime source as being me. To me there is simply one indivisible unit that is "me", with no parts or divisions or separations. It's not even "all me". It's just "me". Then are you separate from everyone else and feel that you are completely self sustaining? Within the limits of the semantics of that question, yes. “Self-sustaining” implies having no dependencies, which I believe is an essential attribute of myself as a spititual entity. I, as a spiritual entity, am not dependent upon anyone or anything else for my existence. Are you God? Not by any definition that I ever heard or used for that word, no. Well, except possibly as Valentine Michael Smith used it in Robert Heinlein’s “A Stranger In A Strange Land” – “Thou art God!” If so, who is everyone else? They are whomever they are, same as me. Are they connected or disconnected from you? Well obviously the simple fact that I can perceive “others” means there must be some connection between me and those others. But “being connected” is not the same thing as “being a part of”. You and I can be “connected” by a cell phone network. But we are not “part of” the cell phone network, or “composed of” network connections. And the network is not “composed of” the people who are talking on it. It is composed of the network connections. You see, everything is one and there are only points of consciousness throughout the body of the one. Those points of consciousness are living conscious beings. Even stars and planets are living and conscious. That appears to be at the foundation of our differences on the subject. I just don’t subscribe to the “everything is one” belief, that’s all. To me, the “points of consciousness” are not parts of a whole. They are individual “wholes” in themselves.

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Sun 10/05/08 05:40 PM Edited by Jeanniebean on Sun 10/05/08 05:42 PM
That appears to be at the foundation of our differences on the subject. I just don’t subscribe to the “everything is one” belief, that’s all. To me, the “points of consciousness” are not parts of a whole. They are individual “wholes” in themselves. I see them as both. Part of the whole, and individual wholes in themselves. Like fruit on a tree. This fruit can drop off and grow into another tree, but until then, it is part of the whole tree. jb

MirrorMirror Joined Fri 10/26/07 Posts: 89680	Sun 10/05/08 06:25 PM
Why is it free will if you use the nouns "your higher self" and "the prime source" but it's slavery if you use the nouns "god" or "lord"? It is all about the realization that you are God because ultimately you are sustained by that Prime Source and connected to it while still maintaining your person, your desires, your interests, your experiences etc. People who worship a God outside of them self don't truly realize the total oneness and connection they have with all that is. Prime Source (God) is within you, experiencing creation and life through you and has its being in you. Prime Source lives through you and through all of its manifestations and creations. All things have (or channel) varying degrees of consciousness. I just have a fundamental disagreement with the idea of being "split" into two (or more) separate parts. I am just me. I don't see it as being "split." I am what I am. I am my higher self expressing itself as a human incarnation. I am not split off from myself. I am myself. There are no "parts" to "me". Yes, I "have" a body and I "have" a mind and I "have" emotions and I "have" a personality and I "have" experiences and I "have" memories" and I "have" perceptions, etc., etc.. But those are not "parts" of me, they are "posessions" of mine. They can be removed without any change to "me". I (this incarnation) have many "parts." I call them aspects of my person. They are called psyche's. Personalities within me. Kind of like multiple personalities only we all are aware of each other and we are not "split" personalities. We communicate with each other and we share memories. Neither am I "split" from my higher self. I share its wisdom and advice when I am open enough to channel that information. My incarnation here (the little self) cannot contain all that my higher self (the true self) is but it can communicate with me when needed and I with it. I don't even think of prime source as "sustaining me" or "being within me" or "experienceing life and creation through me" or "living through me" or anything like that. I think of prime source as being me. To me there is simply one indivisible unit that is "me", with no parts or divisions or separations. It's not even "all me". It's just "me". Then are you separate from everyone else and feel that you are completely self sustaining? Are you God? If so, who is everyone else? Are they connected or disconnected from you? In a sense, you are correct, because ultimately "I am" prime source. But then so is everybody as we are all one in that respect. If I were to follow all of my connections to the final being in existence, that which we call God, I would find that to be me.... but I am not obligated to remain in that state of awareness. A soul traveler who travels to the height of God consciousness rarely stays there. There are many more interesting places to be, and many more interesting things to create. You see, everything is one and there are only points of consciousness throughout the body of the one. Those points of consciousness are living conscious beings. Even stars and planets are living and conscious. JB Thats almost exactly like Frank Herbert's Dune novels. You should check them out sometime JB. The books,not the movies (they suck).

SkyHook5652 Joined Sat 08/23/08 Posts: 4063	Sun 10/05/08 06:32 PM Edited by SkyHook5652 on Sun 10/05/08 06:38 PM
That appears to be at the foundation of our differences on the subject. I just don’t subscribe to the “everything is one” belief, that’s all. To me, the “points of consciousness” are not parts of a whole. They are individual “wholes” in themselves. I see them as both. Part of the whole, and individual wholes in themselves. Like fruit on a tree. This fruit can drop off and grow into another tree, but until then, it is part of the whole tree. That sounds like an almost exact parallel of "biological" life. A single fertilized cell splits and splits and splits. But the resulting organism is "one" regardles of how many new cells are created by splitting, because all the split cells are part of the "one" organism. And all the individual cells are "guided" by the "one" entity. That hypothesis requires a belief in a single proto-entity from which all other entities evolved or grew, and I just choose to believe differently.

SkyHook5652 Joined Sat 08/23/08 Posts: 4063	Sun 10/05/08 06:35 PM
Thats almost exactly like Frank Herbert's Dune novels. You should check them out sometime JB. The books,not the movies (they suck). Yeah, both versions did. And you're right. The way Frank Herbert presented the "future visioning" was very similar.

MirrorMirror Joined Fri 10/26/07 Posts: 89680	Sun 10/05/08 06:59 PM
Thats almost exactly like Frank Herbert's Dune novels. You should check them out sometime JB. The books,not the movies (they suck). Yeah, both versions did. And you're right. The way Frank Herbert presented the "future visioning" was very similar. Also the memories of past lives (otherselves) that some of the main characters have.

MirrorMirror Joined Fri 10/26/07 Posts: 89680	Sun 10/05/08 07:09 PM Edited by MirrorMirror on Sun 10/05/08 07:21 PM
Thats almost exactly like Frank Herbert's Dune novels. You should check them out sometime JB. The books,not the movies (they suck). Yeah, both versions did. And you're right. The way Frank Herbert presented the "future visioning" was very similar. JeannieBean is kinda like one of the Bene Gesserit.

SkyHook5652 Joined Sat 08/23/08 Posts: 4063	Sun 10/05/08 07:46 PM Edited by SkyHook5652 on Sun 10/05/08 07:46 PM
Thats almost exactly like Frank Herbert's Dune novels. You should check them out sometime JB. The books,not the movies (they suck). Yeah, both versions did. And you're right. The way Frank Herbert presented the "future visioning" was very similar. JeannieBean is kinda like one of the Bene Gesserit. We should call her JeannieBene

SkyHook5652 Joined Sat 08/23/08 Posts: 4063	Sun 10/05/08 08:02 PM
That appears to be at the foundation of our differences on the subject. I just don’t subscribe to the “everything is one” belief, that’s all. To me, the “points of consciousness” are not parts of a whole. They are individual “wholes” in themselves. I see them as both. Part of the whole, and individual wholes in themselves. Like fruit on a tree. This fruit can drop off and grow into another tree, but until then, it is part of the whole tree. That sounds like an almost exact parallel of "biological" life. A single fertilized cell splits and splits and splits. But the resulting organism is "one" regardles of how many new cells are created by splitting, because all the split cells are part of the "one" organism. And all the individual cells are "guided" by the "one" entity. That hypothesis requires a belief in a single proto-entity from which all other entities evolved or grew, and I just choose to believe differently. Another thought. That scenario leads to the “aloneness” of the single-entity, as well as the “meaning of the universe” boiling down to nothing more that god playing with himself.

MirrorMirror Joined Fri 10/26/07 Posts: 89680	Sun 10/05/08 08:08 PM
Thats almost exactly like Frank Herbert's Dune novels. You should check them out sometime JB. The books,not the movies (they suck). Yeah, both versions did. And you're right. The way Frank Herbert presented the "future visioning" was very similar. JeannieBean is kinda like one of the Bene Gesserit. We should call her JeannieBene

arkdanimal Joined Wed 08/27/08 Posts: 667	Mon 10/06/08 12:44 AM
Oh no, it wasnt an agenda driven question. I was simply wondering if there were less female followers simply because arguably the faith can be a little edgy as it relates to women. Not everyone thinks that but many do or they excuse or rationalize it in whatever way they can. So I was curious but it would be difficult to determine and I guess you would need to do it by denomination. Catholics are probably the dominant the world over correct? o ok - if you google this sight it will give yu that info K, i thought maybe you were trying to see if women outnumbered the men because of him being a father figure. my mistake books.google.com/books?isbn=030647770X... Who's your daddy? Isnt that what everyone was asking Jesus. Sorry bad joke. Okay thanks Tribo. I will check it out. Its not like Im super interested but mildy. Although you may have meant it as a joke (which is perfectly fine) the question "who's your daddy" to Jesus, may helps us exlain much. If you will recall, Jesus has an orphaned child (set adrift in the river to hide him from genocide)do to the tryanny of the leader of the state at the time. When he was a child, we can only imagine that he may have asked his adoptive parents who his real daddy was. Their response may well have been somthing along these lines "well my child, your father is in heaven". just a thought!

MirrorMirror Joined Fri 10/26/07 Posts: 89680	Mon 10/06/08 06:49 AM
Oh no, it wasnt an agenda driven question. I was simply wondering if there were less female followers simply because arguably the faith can be a little edgy as it relates to women. Not everyone thinks that but many do or they excuse or rationalize it in whatever way they can. So I was curious but it would be difficult to determine and I guess you would need to do it by denomination. Catholics are probably the dominant the world over correct? o ok - if you google this sight it will give yu that info K, i thought maybe you were trying to see if women outnumbered the men because of him being a father figure. my mistake books.google.com/books?isbn=030647770X... Who's your daddy? Isnt that what everyone was asking Jesus. Sorry bad joke. Okay thanks Tribo. I will check it out. Its not like Im super interested but mildy. Although you may have meant it as a joke (which is perfectly fine) the question "who's your daddy" to Jesus, may helps us exlain much. If you will recall, Jesus has an orphaned child (set adrift in the river to hide him from genocide)do to the tryanny of the leader of the state at the time. When he was a child, we can only imagine that he may have asked his adoptive parents who his real daddy was. Their response may well have been somthing along these lines "well my child, your father is in heaven". just a thought! Whut the.......

Krimsa Joined Fri 04/25/08 Posts: 9960	Mon 10/06/08 06:51 AM
Oh no, it wasnt an agenda driven question. I was simply wondering if there were less female followers simply because arguably the faith can be a little edgy as it relates to women. Not everyone thinks that but many do or they excuse or rationalize it in whatever way they can. So I was curious but it would be difficult to determine and I guess you would need to do it by denomination. Catholics are probably the dominant the world over correct? o ok - if you google this sight it will give yu that info K, i thought maybe you were trying to see if women outnumbered the men because of him being a father figure. my mistake books.google.com/books?isbn=030647770X... Who's your daddy? Isnt that what everyone was asking Jesus. Sorry bad joke. Okay thanks Tribo. I will check it out. Its not like Im super interested but mildy. Although you may have meant it as a joke (which is perfectly fine) the question "who's your daddy" to Jesus, may helps us exlain much. If you will recall, Jesus has an orphaned child (set adrift in the river to hide him from genocide)do to the tryanny of the leader of the state at the time. When he was a child, we can only imagine that he may have asked his adoptive parents who his real daddy was. Their response may well have been somthing along these lines "well my child, your father is in heaven". just a thought! Whoa Whoa, wait a minute there Dan my man. Are you confusing Moses with Jesus?

feralcatlady Joined Mon 10/08/07 Posts: 35491	Mon 10/06/08 06:59 AM
I think so......

feralcatlady Joined Mon 10/08/07 Posts: 35491	Mon 10/06/08 07:02 AM
nope sorry I give my life to him with a willing heart there is no control......that is why you have freewill.....free to give it or not......scary never.....control....never Women who are abused give their heart wilingly to their abuser also...does that make it any less controlling? Which again is something that has never happen to me.....a woman who allows abuse the first time it is his fault...the second it is hers.....and I lil lady would never ever let that be an issue with me ever. Women who let men control them is just that. No man has ever or will ever control me and it's hardly the same thing. I give my heart to Jesus of my freewill and how dare you think that a woman who is abused is on the same level......

feralcatlady Joined Mon 10/08/07 Posts: 35491	Mon 10/06/08 07:12 AM
My God accepts and loves all.....but you must live with the consequences of your choices sweets....choose to worship a Goddess....your choice......God is Love but he is also a jealous God......Worship "NO" other gods......so don't blame God for what is clearly your choice. Well if this is your view of parenting, I can see why you are the way you are. When your children disobey you, do you immediatly kick them out of the house, or do you explain to them what they did wrong? If they say they are sorry do you let them back in, but the next time they screw up kick them right back out again? Do you tell your children when they get married to not call their in-laws mom and dad, and if they do, do you no longer claim them? Seems to me the way you descibe "your" God is that of a spoiled child with narcissitic and bi-polar tendencies. I'd leave that house too, how unhealthy is that? The Goddess punishes for wrong doings in the form of Karma and 3 fold, the energy you put out is the energy you receive 3 times. She is loving, but stern too. Yes lily my children will always have consequences for things they do. And again speak of something you know nothing of. My Children are the greatest and grounded in the Lord. And you know what it was entirely their choice.....and again lily kick them out for being bad.....your a loon....If my children do something wrong of course their are consequences. And for me the communication I have with my children is the key. if you can't teach and raise your kids to decide what is good and right and wrong well then your not doing your job. I would much rather have "our" God holding them accountable then some goddess that say do whatever you want because you have no consequences in life do as you please. and lil lady I would check the kharma meter because yours is going to blow.