Jump to content

Where is your God?


Recommended Posts

On 5/31/2021 at 9:36 PM, ink said:

Using 3 different versions of the bible ( 1611 king James, 1599 Geneva and Wycliffe 1382 ) in the opening of Genesis I

(Not trying to discredit anything but looking for hidden meanings.)

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. - 1611
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. - 1599
In the beginning God made of nought heaven and earth. - 1382


This is a statement, an opening not meant as a description, as the description is then given.

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. - 1611
And the earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the deep, and the Spirit of God moved upon the waters. - 1599
Forsooth the earth was idle and void, and darknesses were on the face of (the) depth; and the Spirit of the Lord was borne on the waters. - 1382


So from this we can find that the earth was not yet created. That darkness, depth and water already existed, so are not a creation of God. Then the spirit of God was moved or borne on the water.

 

To give you another version, in my Bible - The Anchor Series, which is a modern literal translation of the original texts, in Genesis, it says something a bit different, this -

 

When God set about to create heaven and earth - the world being then a formless waste, with darkness over the seas and only an awesome wind sweeping over the waters -- God said 'Let there be light'...

 

So my translation gives a different account to your translation and we find the world was formed already at the beginning. My version is also a lot less prosaic than yours, seems the writers of your versions are applying some poetic licence - what with the whole 'In the beginning' very dramatic.

 

In the next verse it simply says - 

 

God said 'Let there be an expanse in the middle of the waters to form a division between the waters' and it was so.

 

Anyway, seems the earth was already here although a wasteland not a formless void, and he then went on to create day and night and habitable places, land - sounds to me more like terraforming.

 

Then there's no mention of 'spirit born on the water' doesn't say anything like that in my Bible.

 

Thought you might be interested to know, anyway I've jumped in ahead a bit, still got the rest of your post to read - sorry but reading your opening lines I just had to give you the comparison. I'll post if I find anymore.

 

 

Edited by pi3141
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/31/2021 at 9:36 PM, ink said:

Also:
And the evening and the morning were the first day. - 1611
So the evening and the morning were the first day. - 1599
And the eventide and the morrowtide was made, one day. - 1382


Evening and then morning is not a day.

 

In my version it says - (follows directly on from previous quote in previous post)

 

'God was pleased with the light that he saw, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light day, and he called the darkness night. Thus evening came, and morning - first day' (quote ends)

 

So again, a slightly different reading to your version and may well affect your interpretation of the verse. If the evening came and then the morning it implies night passed, thus we progressed from one day to the next.

Edited by pi3141
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/31/2021 at 9:36 PM, ink said:

Lets look at the next lines. In fact a few lines later, line 6, yes the sixth line in the bible!

And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 1611
Again God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters. 1599
And God said, The firmament be made in the midst of (the) waters, and part (the) waters from (the) waters. 1388


By the way....firmament means heaven (or also means a vault, something to stop another from gaining or to stop that which is in the 'safe' from leaving).....so heaven did not exist before this?

 

Again, mine doesn't say firmament it says expanse so a completely different meaning and no interpretation as to what firmament actually means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/18/2021 at 5:55 PM, pi3141 said:

 

Lol. I know what you mean but the question still needs to be asked, who's truth should I believe? Your version of Christianity or the fundamentalists or the Mormons or the Jehova witnesses or the Catholics?

 

The point is to figure it out for yourself. The facts are presented to you, what do you make of them. Though finding the truth these days isn't for everybody....which is why you get groups like the Mormons and JW. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/31/2021 at 9:36 PM, ink said:

This is backed up by looking at John 1
(read word as wave (sound))
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. - 1611
In the beginning was that Word, and that Word was with God, and that]Word was God. - 1599
In the beginning was the word, and the word was at God, and God was the word. - 1382


So the word was first. Then the word was with God. Then the two interacted.


God did not create the word, it existed before God.
Word is sound, a wave form, creation from a vibration.

Then of course it goes on that God created man and man is a creation of light and that the darkness had to separate from the light as it did not understand man!
But remember that the light (man, not the light we think of as stars as these had yet to be made) was created by the 'water' through the now created 'god'

In John1 (1599):

All things were made by it, and without it was made nothing that was made.
In it was life, and that life was the light of men.
And that light shineth in the wilderness, and the darkness comprehendeth it not.


So....ALL is made from IT.......not him or god but IT
Life (creation, God) came from IT

 

Again, my version of the original texts say something slightly different.

 

'In the beginning was the word, the word was in God's presence, and the word was God. He was present with God in the beginning.'

 

'Through him all things came into being, and apart from him not a thing came to be. That which had come to be in him was life, and this life was the light of men. The light shines on in the darkness, for the darkness did not overcome it'

 

Anyway, what is a word, a word is a wave but actually its a complex waveform. What about the beginning, well if there were vast gas/plasma clouds hanging around in space and a complex waveform was propagated into it it could cause an explosion and from this explosion could be created solid matter. Much like creation and or the Big Bang. It could be considered that the complex waveform acted like a program to control or direct the explosion to a certain end.

 

I don't much care for the Big Bang theory but it does hold similarities to the supposed creation by God. And it is to an extent the best theory we have so far. Thats another thread.

 

Anyway, it says God created light, so he created the Sun, his first creation and I guess why the Sun is revered so much in religious systems. Then he came across the earth, already formed just covered in water and created a continent, so terraformed it, which is similar to the history we are told that the earth was originally one plate above water which split up and separated, again, intriguing parallels.

 

Then in the first account of Genesis he created man and woman. Only later in the second creation account do we get the whole rib from Adam story. 

 

So its interesting that while there are parallels to the creation in Genesis between John's opening account and Genesis they are similar. But again, these stories appear to be taken from earlier, Pagan, myths and stories.
 

Quote

Two things....know thy self....know where you are?

 

Very Pagan or Pythagorean of you!! Very true though - keep calm and carry on, as above, so below...

 

Quote

The devil is in the details

 

About 2 inches! Which is about the size between your fingers when you make the devil horns, and the Pyramid is about 1 inch out in its alignment. The Pyramid inch is said to be the unit used in its construction. Details details. Is Jacobs ladder just a representation of Astronomical units of measurement to measure the distance to heaven, each step being a unit of measurement? I think digitization is also the devils work, samples and bits, thats not real music, its just an illusion! Lol. Sorry just scriblings from my writings, your quote set me off on a tangent!

Edited by pi3141
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/31/2021 at 9:36 PM, ink said:

Remember firmament also means vault. A place to lock some thing away in.

 

Vault is also an architectural term for a ceiling or roof structure. 

 

Again, my Bible doesn't say firmament or anything about its existence. Its errors like these that let you see the Bible has been re-written by fallible men. The belief in a firmament led to the crystal dome to hold up the stars theory which was probably common among early man as they did'nt have Astrophysics to explain what they saw in the sky's. Same as Flat earth, and the bible is a flat earth book - 'he took him up to see all the kingdoms of the world and offered them to him if he bowed down' well how could he see 'all the kingdoms of the earth' unless the earth was flat, the writers believed the earth flat. 

 

So you see, us not having access to unadulterated translations of the original texts leads to all sorts of doctrines and fantasies where they don't exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
On 4/2/2021 at 11:27 AM, pi3141 said:

Hell as professed in the East is neither the absence of God, nor the ontological separation of the soul from the presence of God, but rather the opposite—Heaven and Hell are the fully manifest divine presence, experienced either pleasantly as peace and joy or unpleasantly as shame and anguish, depending upon one's spiritual state and preparedness. 

The kingdom of heaven (and hell) is now, just as Joshua has said for 2000 years or so.
this brings me to my mark of the beast revaluation

Quote

"Fix these words of mine in your "hearts" and "minds"; tie them as symbols on your "hands" and bind them on your "foreheads". Teach them to your children, talking about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates[ all of these are thoughts and actions to take]"

the bible clearly states to the early Israelites that the actions they take and the thoughts in their head, are marks upon the hand(action) and forehead(the thinking part of the brain). and as such the mark is defined as "to love the Lord your God" or to hate him. if you take the mark of the beast, you will hate God and mankind, and if you take the mark of Christ, you will to love the Lord your God, and love your enemy as yourself. 
also in revelation 13:16 the most proper translation of the text is: 

Here is a call for wisdom: Let the one who has insight COUNT the PEOPLE of the beast, for it is the PEOPLE of a 'man', and that PEOPLE is SAYING "War In The Name of God"



As for

Quote

"a modern literal translation of the original texts"


ok that's a dumb idea, when I translate Spanish I'm not going to use a "a modern literal translation of the original texts"

even google isn't that stupid lol

what you need a modern anecdotal transliteration of the original texts.
which still does not exist

because I have yet to find the will to do so, and it seems no one else finds a need...

when you read the NKJV, or any literal translation, you are reading aramaic, hebrew, greek (and later latin) using english words... It translates the speech patterns and writing styles of those languages, and many would say it is devoid of any emotions other than judgement and confusion.

I grew up reading the bible in isolation, when I came out to rebel at 16yo-19yo I had no idea how to speak English, and I got in fights, and a lot of damage was done to me and many others because I would say something using what I now call "English Hebrew" or "English Greek" and they would hear it in "Modern English", which was not a proper transliteration of what I was trying to convey.

conversely when they spoke i would hear a Greek/Hebrew translation and freak out on them for blasphemy lol...
add to that the resulting spoken, written, and reading dyslexia I developed later in my teens  and you can see how hard my life has been.


I told you all that to make it clear that biblical translation is a device of ha satan, and not a proper way to convey scripture.

To the mod who reads this: please send me a letter if you delete this before it is posted, stating the reason for blocking my responses.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Josiah 2 said:

ok that's a dumb idea, when I translate Spanish I'm not going to use a "a modern literal translation of the original texts"

even google isn't that stupid lol

 

Hi Josiah2

 

Well I would argue its the best idea. To read others interpretation of the texts is to introduce the possibility of errors. In other words if the translator has pre-conceived ideas of what the Bible ought to say he will restate whats already said rather than give a faithful translation.

 

Which version do you read, is it a Spanish translation of an English version or a Spanish translation of original texts?

 

Does your version speak of Hell and Lucifer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

 

When someone translates Spanish to English their not going to use a "a modern literal translation of the original texts" even google doesn't do translations though they call it that, but google lies a lot so that's nothing new...

What you need is a modern 
Meaningful Translation of the texts original meaning*.

Which still does not exist, because I have yet to find the will to do so, and it seems no one else finds a need...

When you read the NKJV, or any literal translation, you are reading Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek (and later Latin) using English words... It translates the speech patterns and writing styles of those languages, and those who only know Modern English would say it is devoid of any emotions other than judgement and confusion.

That means that those who speak Modern English cannot properly understand what you're saying 'cause it is in another language.


Anyone speaking "English Hebrew" or "English Greek" is speaking ancient languages of ancient peoples with different world views. Those who speak "Modern English", cannot not Meaningfully Translate what those speaking non-Modern English are trying to convey.


I told you all that to make it clear that literal translation is a device of ha satan, and not a proper way to convey scripture.

 

transliteration was an error, I was tiered when I wrote the first comment, i have edited the parts that pertain to your question.

 

meaningful vs literal translation issues:
https://www.montereylanguages.com/blog/meaningful-translation-vs-literal-translation-2016
excerpt from that site:


“Top of the mornin to ya!” means a heartfelt “Good morning!” in idiomatic Irish/American.
Yet none of the following word for word translations convey the true meaning of the phrase.

French: “Top des Mornin à Ya!”
German: “Spitze der Mornin zu Ya!”
Simplified Chinese: “顶部以遐的早晨!

Edited by Josiah 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/8/2021 at 12:00 AM, Josiah 2 said:

transliteration was an error, I was tiered when I wrote the first comment, i have edited the parts that pertain to your question.

 

Ok, before I comment on transliterations or misunderstood meanings to phrases lets mention Lucifer.

 

In the original texts the verse, and the only verse, that mentions Lucifer, it says -

 

'Oh day star how art thou fallen' this is in reference to the planet Venus.

 

Then it was changed in the Greek and Hebrew to read - 

 

'Oh lightbearer how art thou fallen'

 

Then the Romans came and translated the texts into Latin and Lightbearer became Lucifer.

 

Hence the text reads - 

 

'Oh Lucifer how art thou fallen'

 

And in a stroke Lucifer was invented. This is not a misunderstanding of a meaning, this is an error.

 

Lucifer was invented by the Roman Church on the basis of a 'typo' or a misunderstanding of the original texts and that error persists in all subsequent Roman derived Bibles and a whole doctrine has been invented to support the ereor.

 

What do you say about that?

Edited by pi3141
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's some info - 

 

'- How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer! Babylon's sudden fall is compared, with great force and beauty, to the (seeming) fall of a star from heaven. The word translated "Lucifer" means properly "shining one," and no doubt here designates a star; but whether any particular star or no is uncertain.

 

Link - Isaiah 14:12 How you have fallen from heaven, O day star, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the ground, O destroyer of nations. (biblehub.com)

 

New International Version
How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!

 

King James Bible
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

 

 

Lucifer is/was a star referencing the earlier Pagan mythology of worshiping planets and those Pagan teachings have been incorporated into your Bible and converted to Christian mythology. 

 

There is no Lucifer - but do you believe in Lucifer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, pi3141 said:

Here's some info - 

 

'- How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer! Babylon's sudden fall is compared, with great force and beauty, to the (seeming) fall of a star from heaven. The word translated "Lucifer" means properly "shining one," and no doubt here designates a star; but whether any particular star or no is uncertain.

 

Link - Isaiah 14:12 How you have fallen from heaven, O day star, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the ground, O destroyer of nations. (biblehub.com)

 

New International Version
How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!

 

King James Bible
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

 

 

Lucifer is/was a star referencing the earlier Pagan mythology of worshiping planets and those Pagan teachings have been incorporated into your Bible and converted to Christian mythology. 

 

There is no Lucifer - but do you believe in Lucifer?

Lucifer literally means "the morning star" hence the different translations. Some schools of though see Lucifer as the bringer of enlightenment, some deny , some as Satan. What I say to deniers of Lucifer is survey the world. This is a world of evil, it exists everywhere because this world is Satan's realm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Diesel said:

Lucifer literally means "the morning star" hence the different translations. Some schools of though see Lucifer as the bringer of enlightenment, some deny , some as Satan. What I say to deniers of Lucifer is survey the world. This is a world of evil, it exists everywhere because this world is Satan's realm.

 

Well from the web - 

 

Lucifer
[ˈluːsɪfə]
NOUN
another name for Satan.
literary
the planet Venus when it rises in the morning.
archaic
(lucifer)
a match struck by rubbing it on a rough surface.

 

And also -

 

The name Lucifer, which means “bearer of light” or “morning star,” 

Link - Lucifer Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com

 

The original verse referring to Lucifer was referring to the planet Venus, the morning or day star, and not a fallen angel. Lucifer got invented when they translated 'Light Bearer' into Lucifer. 'Luci' in Latin means 'Light'. The term 'Light Bearer' was a later change to 'Day Star' or 'Morning Star' then Light bearer was translated to Lucifer and he was invented. Then a whole mythology and yes magical system built up around the fiction.

 

Satan's another fiction. I don't deny there are Satanists working against God and humanity, but they again are deceived.

This is not Satan's realm, this is our realm. We could make it heaven on Earth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, pi3141 said:

We could make it heaven on Earth

Everything decays and dies here, even if we created a new society where there was no evil you will still grow old , loose the ones you love and die. This reality is hell. Jesus's return will create a new world until then we live in hell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, pi3141 said:

The original verse referring to Lucifer was referring to the planet Venus, the morning or day star, and not a fallen angel. Lucifer got invented when they translated 'Light Bearer' into Lucifer. 'Luci' in Latin means 'Light'. The term 'Light Bearer' was a later change to 'Day Star' or 'Morning Star' then Light bearer was translated to Lucifer and he was invented. Then a whole mythology and yes magical system built up around the fiction.

 

 

The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he did not exist

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Diesel said:

Everything decays and dies here, even if we created a new society where there was no evil you will still grow old , loose the ones you love and die. This reality is hell. Jesus's return will create a new world until then we live in hell.

 

Yes everything dies - that is life. This life, this world is a gift from God, this reality is not hell, to think so is, I believe, an offence against God and what its done for you.

 

Jesus is not coming back. There is much confusion about this. First Jesus' second coming can be seen as an astrotheological event. In 25000 years the Sun will again rise in the constellation of Aries. This is the second coming.

 

Secondly, if you talk to the spiritualists they will tell you Jesus is not coming back, he is to far advanced in his Fathers many mansions to return.

 

Third, the doctrine of the Rapture is based on an erroneous reading of Thessalonians. It has no basis in scripture. The Catholics don't believe in the Rapture, they think something different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Diesel said:

The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he did not exist

 

If you believe in a Deity with its own realm to rule over, who has the power to trap and torture God's creations for an eternity and who has the power to challenge God, you have elevated Satan to a Godhead, you have unwittingly become a Polytheist, a Heathen, one who believes in many Gods.

Edited by pi3141
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is Hell a Real Fire?

 

Is hell a real fire? Could it be? If it were, why would God create this fire? Does He want to chastise us forever? Many Christians and non-Christians alike have serious difficulties in approaching a God that would let people burn for eternity. In fact, this misrepresentation of God’s wrath or His cruel punishment has led many not only to NOT believe in the Christian God, but also to unjustly hate Him.

 

When His Holiness Pope Shenouda, of Thrice Blessed Memory, was once asked if hell was a real fire. His answer was clear: no, it is not! Actually, believing that hell is a real fire is an offense to God’s fatherhood.

 

Link - Is hell a real fire? Does God want to chastise us for eternity? | Coptic Orthodox Answers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Diesel said:

This reality is hell. 

 

To believe that is to hate God's creation and his gift to you. I think that is offensive to God and probably just what the Satanists want you to believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some further reading if your interested.

 

From Isis Unveiled - 


P457
Several years ago an acquaintance of the author wrote a newspaper article to demonstrate that the diabolos or Satan of the New Testament denoted the personification of an abstract idea, and not a personal being.

 

P480
This dogma of the Devil and redemption seems to be based upon two passages in the New Testament:

 

"For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the Devil." † "And there was war in heaven; Michael and his angels fought against the Dragon; and the Dragon fought, and his angels, and prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great Dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world." Let us, then, explore the ancient Theogonies, in order to ascertain what was meant by these remarkable expressions.

 

The first inquiry is whether the term Devil, as here used, actually represents the malignant Deity of the Christians, or an antagonistic, blind force — the dark side of nature. By the latter we are not to understand the manifestation of any evil principle that is malum in se, but only the shadow of the Light, so to say. The theories of the kabalists treat of it as a force which is antagonistic, but at the same time essential to the vitality, evolving, and vigor of the good principle. Plants would perish in their first stage of existence, if they were kept exposed to a constant sunlight; the night alternating with the day is essential to their healthy growth and development. Goodness, likewise, would speedily cease to be such, were it not alternated by its opposite. In human nature, evil denotes the antagonism of matter to the spiritual, and each is accordingly purified thereby. In the cosmos, the equilibrium must be preserved; the operation of the two contraries produce harmony, like the centripetal and centrifugal forces, and are necessary to each other. If one is arrested, the action of the other will immediately become destructive.

 

This personification, denominated Satan, is to be contemplated from three different planes: the Old Testament, the Christian Fathers, and the ancient Gentile altitude. He is supposed to have been represented by the Serpent in the Garden of Eden; nevertheless, the epithet of Satan is nowhere in the Hebrew sacred writings applied to that or any other variety of ophidian. The Brazen Serpent of Moses was worshipped by the Israelites as a god;* being the symbol of Esmun-Asklepius the Phoenician Iao. Indeed, the character of Satan himself is introduced in the 1st book of Chronicles in the act of instigating King David to number the Israelitish people, an act elsewhere declared specifically to have been moved by Jehovah himself. † The inference is unavoidable that the two, Satan and Jehovah, were regarded as identical.

 

Another mention of Satan is found in the prophecies of Zechariah. This book was written at a period subsequent to the Jewish colonization of Palestine, and hence, the Asideans may fairly be supposed to have brought the personification thither from the East. It is well-known that this body of sectaries were deeply imbued with the Mazdean notions; and that they represented Ahriman or Anra-manyas by the god-names of Syria. Set or Sat-an, the god of the Hittites and Hyk-sos, and Beel-Zebub the oracle-god, afterward the Grecian Apollo. The prophet began his labors in Judea in the second year of Darius Hystaspes, the restorer of the Mazdean worship. He thus describes the encounter with Satan: "He showed me Joshua the high-priest standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right hand to be his adversary. And the Lord said unto Satan: 'The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan; even the Lord that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?' " ‡

 

P482
We apprehend that this passage which we have quoted is symbolical. There are two allusions in the New Testament that indicate that it was so regarded. The Catholic Epistle of Jude refers to it in this peculiar language: "Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the Devil, he disputed about the body of Moses, did not venture to utter to him a reviling judgment ( kri'sin epenegkei'n Blasfhmiva" ), but said, 'The Lord rebuke thee.' " * The archangel Michael is thus mentioned as identical with the hwhY Lord, or angel of the Lord, of the preceding quotation, and thus is shown that the Hebrew Jehovah had a twofold character, the secret and that manifested as the angel of the Lord, or Michael the archangel. A comparison between these two passages renders it plain that "the body of Moses" over which they contended was Palestine, which as "the land of the Hittites"† was the peculiar domain of Seth, their tutelar god. ‡ Michael, as the champion of the Jehovah-worship, contended with the Devil or Adversary, but left judgment to his superior.

 

Belial is not entitled to the distinction of either god or devil. The term l[Ylk--X-a , BELIAL, is defined to mean a destroying, waste, uselessness; or the phrase l[Ylk--X-a AIS-BELIAL or Belial-man signifies a wasteful, useless man. If Belial must be personified to please our religious friends, we would be obliged to make him  perfectly distinct from Satan, and to consider him as a sort of spiritual "Diakka." The demonographers, however, who enumerate nine distinct orders of daimonia, make him chief of the third class — a set of hobgoblins, mischievous and good-for-nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, pi3141 said:

 

Yes everything dies - that is life.

That's not an explanation nor does it explain the core facts about this reality - that its temporal and that it is a false reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Diesel said:

That's not an explanation nor does it explain the core facts about this reality - that its temporal and that it is a false reality.

 

Ok I don't want to get all analytical on you as I hardly know you but - this reality is temporal. Yes this 'phase' of our existence is temporary but its a huge gift, to be standing on this rock hurtling through space, to see the stars, sunrise in the morning, stormy weather and lightning, to love. Its a wonderful experience even if it does drag you down sometimes (I had a bad childhood, tried to commit suicide at 11) yes there are idiots out there spoiling it for everyone but I try not to let that get me down.

 

As for false reality, well yes and no, we have our senses and physicality with which we can touch feel and experience but yes there is also a higher reality that runs alongside our own, which most of us don't feel, but we are destined for it, so in that way its not really temporary as we are eternal its just this part of our existence is temporary. But this part of our experience is God's gift to you and to feel negatively about is sad. Its a unique and amazing experience to be alive. I can understand the Mystic view that you are separated from God and long to be back in its presence, heaven above us so this must be Hell but that view is wrong for most of us, it may be appropriate for some mystics. But even the mystics know they must pass through this experience to get back to God and by meditation and quiet contemplation they can still experience God in this life. So its not all bad. 

 

I think if you view this life or reality as Hell then the Satanists and Anti Christs have won your mind over.

Edited by pi3141
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...