| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Timothy Sutter" |
| Date: |
01 Sep 2006 03:03:27 AM |
| Object: |
considering the analogy |
considering the analogy
of God to a marriage.
your salvation doesn't depend on any of this,
it's just some things about the nature of this
thing that maybe you might wish to consider.
it is an aspect.
first that and then the bit about God.
suppose two people came together
and each had what can loosely
be described as their
own personalities.
[not considering Azazel's goat at this time]
alright, so, those two, create a third
personality which is comprised of
components from each of the two.
if it could be construed that some
sort of love infused this relationship,
then that third personality would
come to resemble a union of the
total personality of both people.
but, it could also be considered
that as those two people brought
this third personality into being,
that both of them, would grow into
that third personality which is
that union of the two.
well, if you consider God to have
always existed and to have no beginning,
there could be no time at which
to point and say;
"at this time, Word and Spirit were
separate and distinct and 'they' had
not yet learned each other and that
'third' personality, which is the
union of the two did not exist."
so, for 'them' that union of the two,
-is- Love, but because this is True,
the distinguishing characteristics
which would bring distinction, is
so subtle as to be something that
only 'they' -could- recognize.
and so, for all practical
purposes, 'they' are One God.
but -we- are _allowed_ to recognize
this apparent plurality as that
characteristic which would
define Love.
concern for the 'other'
"love your neighbor"
"love you God"
only in the case of God,
"God and neighbor" are
identically God.
and so, 'they' are each other's 'God'
but, also, 'they' -are- One God.
and, back to people,
one could see how it would be possible
for a congregation of people to be of
the same Spirit and, though they may
have distinct personality structures,
their alignment with the Mind of Christ
and revealed knowledge of God would make
it possible for a unity of purpose to exist.
and that's what is sometimes
described as "The Church"
a stone structure built of people
with Christ as foundation and cornerstone
and believe me, i'm not trying
to tell anyone how to live or
how it's -supposed- to be,
only pointing at something people
may recognize in their day to day life
and mentioning something about God.
but it is -probably- why some
people see 'marriage' as sacred.
it's not like something people should
enter in to with the frivolity reserved
for bingo night.
i don't think it's a thing to be entered
in to with the express expectation that
such a union will be disolved in 6 years.
or just to preserve a legal business arrangement.
some people feel that 'marriage'
resembles something about God.
albeit God is One and Jesus Christ
is a stamped express Image of God.
but we also point to Christ
taking "The Church" as Bride.
where "The Church" is Christ's
own Body -and- the Bride of Christ.
and so, you end up hearing suggestions
that married people actually belong
to each other.
like each is the other's person.
and we have Christ as Gift from God
and we belong to God in Christ.
and so, neither is this meant to discourage
those who do not get married to another person,
because, in a sense, they become 'married' to God
and the relationship they keep with God can be
described as such; they seek for themselves only
God's design and not their own, all the while,
God is seeking -their- best interest.
whereas some have suggested that human beings
who do get married tend to seek out the creature
comforts, first, above the spiritual comforts,
and may tend to put them selves first, and yet,
i do not -fault- either, those who get
married nor those who do not.
these are likenesses and being offered as
remarks to increase understanding and not
as ordinances to maintain societal practice.
-because- two people who become married -can-
focus their efforts towards God in just as
vital and effective a manner as one person
who becomes totally devoted to God, and
nothing prevents a single person who is
totally devoted to God, from seeking
out a mate, just that there are difficulties
in this life, like you needed me to tell you that.
so, last little bit,
that's why when you align yourself around
the Truth which is Christ, the two people
who are bringing this third personality
into being have every confidence that
they are enlivening a Love which
is borne of God.
not two people who each seek their own
personal and private benefit, and scratch
and claw each other to death,
but two who seek the benefit of the other
just as Christ seeks the benefit of "The Church"
and God is One in Love
also, we would not suggest this;
"20% of the Holy Spirit is over there and
25% is over there and 50% is over there."
it's just not fruitful to think
of the Holy Spirit along those lines.
so fine, God is One God.
and knowing God is "Love"
you have to grasp that
God is also Two.
you say that God is Two,
when you say God is "Love"
and then you -can- suggest, if you wish
to suggest such things, that the Unity
of the Two is a third unique Entity.
but that third Unique Entity is,
The Fullness of God,
the One God
and this Fullness, we do not interrupt,
if we suggest that the Two, in "Love"
-is- this Fullness of God
now we suggest that the Two as One
is no greater or lesser God than
the One as Two.
first, look at this,
Just God, and no 'other'
God actually lives in the Word of God,
God is that Being whose
Word is, and will become.
that is, the Word God speaks,
happen, the Word is alive,
the Word effects,
and God actually -lives-
_in_ the utterence.
God begins to speak a thing, and God
actually lives in and amid the Word,
and experiences the 'travelling'
-of- the Word -in- the Word.
the Word is no less Spirit
the Word -is- Spirit.
think on this for a moment;
a very simple case, knowing
there are other aspects;
so, you are sitting in a chair
facing another, empty, chair,
and you speak in to the empty chair,
and your words become a fullness
in a chair that was empty.
that is, it's as if you moved from
one chair to the other, and yet,
you are still in the first chair.
and you experienced yourself moving
thru the intermediate space and
appearing in the other chair.
_like_ 'i' speak 'you' in to
a chair, and you call me over.
or, 'we' are sitting in a chair, and
'i' ask 'you' to move over to the
other chair, and then you ask me
to sit in your chair with you.
only, 'you' and 'i' appear, in likeness,
as components of some inexpressible Unity.
somewhat, sort of, like that.
remember now, we are trying to understand something
about God and not just considering human beings, here.
we're talking about an Eternal Deity.
so anyway,
the being in the 'other' chair is really
just an expression of the Love that
was always present in God.
but then, we step back and suggest
that God was -always- Two, whose Love
travelled on the Word, and whose Unity
expressed itself -in- the understanding
of the 'other' Unique Identification.
and Love Moved upon the Face of the Deep.
and They Spoke themselves to and fro.
They are One God, but They Love
and Love speaks of 'the other'
.
|
|
| User: "ZenIsWhen" |
|
| Title: Re: considering the analogy |
01 Sep 2006 10:56:12 AM |
|
|
"Timothy Sutter" <a202010@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:44F7E94F.434B@lycos.com...
considering the analogy
of God to a marriage.
Naaaa.......... sounds like nothing more than opinionated, biased, crap.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: considering the analogy |
01 Sep 2006 02:40:02 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 1 Sep 2006 10:56:12 -0500, ZenIsWhen wrote:
"Timothy Sutter" <a202010@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:44F7E94F.434B@lycos.com...
considering the analogy
of God to a marriage.
Naaaa.......... sounds like nothing more than
opinionated, biased, crap.
Well, ya gotta remember that, down here in the Bible Belt,
marriage is the first step in getting divorced.
Gray Shockley
------------------
Do you realize that Cthulhu is
running as a reform candidate?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Timothy Sutter" |
|
| Title: Re: considering the analogy |
01 Sep 2006 11:40:56 AM |
|
|
considering the analogy
of God to a marriage.
your salvation doesn't depend on any of this,
it's just some things about the nature of this
thing that maybe you might wish to consider.
it is an aspect.
first that and then the bit about God.
suppose two people came together
and each had what can loosely
be described as their
own personalities.
[not considering Azazel's goat at this time]
alright, so, those two, create a third
personality which is comprised of
components from each of the two.
if it could be construed that some
sort of love infused this relationship,
then that third personality would
come to resemble a union of the
total personality of both people.
but, it could also be considered
that as those two people brought
this third personality into being,
that both of them, would grow into
that third personality which is
that union of the two.
well, if you consider God to have
always existed and to have no beginning,
there could be no time at which
to point and say;
"at this time, Word and Spirit were
separate and distinct and 'they' had
not yet learned each other and that
'third' personality, which is the
union of the two did not exist."
so, for 'them' that union of the two,
-is- Love, but because this is True,
the distinguishing characteristics
which would bring distinction, is
so subtle as to be something that
only 'they' -could- recognize.
and so, for all practical
purposes, 'they' are One God.
but -we- are _allowed_ to recognize
this apparent plurality as that
characteristic which would
define Love.
concern for the 'other'
"love your neighbor"
"love you God"
only in the case of God,
"God and neighbor" are
identically God.
and so, 'they' are each other's 'God'
but, also, 'they' -are- One God.
and, back to people,
one could see how it would be possible
for a congregation of people to be of
the same Spirit and, though they may
have distinct personality structures,
their alignment with the Mind of Christ
and revealed knowledge of God would make
it possible for a unity of purpose to exist.
and that's what is sometimes
described as "The Church"
a stone structure built of people
with Christ as foundation and cornerstone
and believe me, i'm not trying
to tell anyone how to live or
how it's -supposed- to be,
only pointing at something people
may recognize in their day to day life
and mentioning something about God.
but it is -probably- why some
people see 'marriage' as sacred.
it's not like something people should
enter in to with the frivolity reserved
for bingo night.
i don't think it's a thing to be entered
in to with the express expectation that
such a union will be disolved in 6 years.
or just to preserve a legal business arrangement.
some people feel that 'marriage'
resembles something about God.
albeit God is One and Jesus Christ
is a stamped express Image of God.
but we also point to Christ
taking "The Church" as Bride.
where "The Church" is Christ's
own Body -and- the Bride of Christ.
and so, you end up hearing suggestions
that married people actually belong
to each other.
like each is the other's person.
and we have Christ as Gift from God
and we belong to God in Christ.
and so, neither is this meant to discourage
those who do not get married to another person,
because, in a sense, they become 'married' to God
and the relationship they keep with God can be
described as such; they seek for themselves only
God's design and not their own, all the while,
God is seeking -their- best interest.
whereas some have suggested that human beings
who do get married tend to seek out the creature
comforts, first, above the spiritual comforts,
and may tend to put them selves first, and yet,
i do not -fault- either, those who get
married nor those who do not.
these are likenesses and being offered as
remarks to increase understanding and not
as ordinances to maintain societal practice.
-because- two people who become married -can-
focus their efforts towards God in just as
vital and effective a manner as one person
who becomes totally devoted to God, and
nothing prevents a single person who is
totally devoted to God, from seeking
out a mate, just that there are difficulties
in this life, like you needed me to tell you that.
so, last little bit,
that's why when you align yourself around
the Truth which is Christ, the two people
who are bringing this third personality
into being have every confidence that
they are enlivening a Love which
is borne of God.
not two people who each seek their own
personal and private benefit, and scratch
and claw each other to death,
but two who seek the benefit of the other
just as Christ seeks the benefit of "The Church"
and God is One in Love
also, we would not suggest this;
"20% of the Holy Spirit is over there and
25% is over there and 50% is over there."
it's just not fruitful to think
of the Holy Spirit along those lines.
so fine, God is One God.
and knowing God is "Love"
you have to grasp that
God is also Two.
you say that God is Two,
when you say God is "Love"
and then you -can- suggest, if you wish
to suggest such things, that the Unity
of the Two is a third unique Entity.
but that third Unique Entity is,
The Fullness of God,
the One God
and this Fullness, we do not interrupt,
if we suggest that the Two, in "Love"
-is- this Fullness of God
now we suggest that the Two as One
is no greater or lesser God than
the One as Two.
first, look at this,
Just God, and no 'other'
God actually lives in the Word of God,
God is that Being whose
Word is, and will become.
that is, the Word God speaks,
happen, the Word is alive,
the Word effects,
and God actually -lives-
_in_ the utterence.
God begins to speak a thing, and God
actually lives in and amid the Word,
and experiences the 'travelling'
-of- the Word -in- the Word.
the Word is no less Spirit
the Word -is- Spirit.
think on this for a moment;
a very simple case, knowing
there are other aspects;
so, you are sitting in a chair
facing another, empty, chair,
and you speak in to the empty chair,
and your words become a fullness
in a chair that was empty.
that is, it's as if you moved from
one chair to the other, and yet,
you are still in the first chair.
and you experienced yourself moving
thru the intermediate space and
appearing in the other chair.
_like_ 'i' speak 'you' in to
a chair, and you call me over.
or, 'we' are sitting in a chair, and
'i' ask 'you' to move over to the
other chair, and then you ask me
to sit in your chair with you.
only, 'you' and 'i' appear, in likeness,
as components of some inexpressible Unity.
somewhat, sort of, like that.
remember now, we are trying to understand something
about God and not just considering human beings, here.
we're talking about an Eternal Deity.
so anyway,
the being in the 'other' chair is really
just an expression of the Love that
was always present in God.
but then, we step back and suggest
that God was -always- Two, whose Love
travelled on the Word, and whose Unity
expressed itself -in- the understanding
of the 'other' Unique Identification.
and Love Moved upon the Face of the Deep.
and They Spoke themselves to and fro.
They are One God, but They Love
and Love speaks of 'the other'
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: considering the analogy |
01 Sep 2006 04:32:06 AM |
|
|
Timothy Sutter <a202010@lycos.com> wrote:
[issuing an exceptionally large amount of noise to start yet another
silly thread]
So I say unto him in return:
God.
but are still in God. but then, we belong to God is why some
inexpressible Unity.
somewhat, sort of, like each is Love traveled on this for bingo night.
i don't think on any of Christ.
and revealed knowledge of the intermediate space and you consider God
to a union of Christ is this of God is One God.
and appearing in the total personality which would make it is Two,
whose Word God and so, last little bit, that's why when you suggest,
if you call me to suggest this third personality structures, their
alignment with the chair that as one could also Two.
first, look at this for a manner as The Church is True, the Word is,
and this life, like something about God.
suppose two people who do not their day to exist.
so, you experienced yourself around the analogy of people with you.
only, and Love also, One in to tell you consider God would be
construed that God and revealed knowledge of the Two
in this Fullness, we suggest that third personality of people should
enter in and we belong to grasp that union of the spiritual comforts
first, above the Love which is a congregation of the two.
well, if we do get married people feel that human beings who are
enlivening a moment a manner as one person who get married to with
Christ and God and not yet learned each other.
like that.
remember now, we belong to the Word God and being in God.
and Jesus Christ as one person who do not like something about the
Love and Spirit along those two, Love
but it possible for a moment a chair is a sense, they seek out the
understanding and so, for themselves only God's design
and yet, you ask to move over there.
it's to seek the other chair.
like something people see as if you moved from each is that married
tend to discourage those who are difficulties in a mate,
just some have Christ and Love traveled on any of the Unique
Identification.
and yet, you are allowed to God, from seeking best interest.
whereas some things about God.
but are bringing this Fullness of God now we have every confidence
that and Love that some inexpressible Unity.
somewhat, sort of Christ seeks the Bride of the Unique Identification.
and ask me to day
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timothy Sutter" |
|
| Title: Re: considering the analogy |
01 Sep 2006 04:59:06 AM |
|
|
considering the analogy
of God to a marriage.
your salvation doesn't depend on any of this,
it's just some things about the nature of this
thing that maybe you might wish to consider.
it is an aspect.
first that and then the bit about God.
suppose two people came together
and each had what can loosely
be described as their
own personalities.
[not considering Azazel's goat at this time]
alright, so, those two, create a third
personality which is comprised of
components from each of the two.
if it could be construed that some
sort of love infused this relationship,
then that third personality would
come to resemble a union of the
total personality of both people.
but, it could also be considered
that as those two people brought
this third personality into being,
that both of them, would grow into
that third personality which is
that union of the two.
well, if you consider God to have
always existed and to have no beginning,
there could be no time at which
to point and say;
"at this time, Word and Spirit were
separate and distinct and 'they' had
not yet learned each other and that
'third' personality, which is the
union of the two did not exist."
so, for 'them' that union of the two,
-is- Love, but because this is True,
the distinguishing characteristics
which would bring distinction, is
so subtle as to be something that
only 'they' -could- recognize.
and so, for all practical
purposes, 'they' are One God.
but -we- are _allowed_ to recognize
this apparent plurality as that
characteristic which would
define Love.
concern for the 'other'
"love your neighbor"
"love you God"
only in the case of God,
"God and neighbor" are
identically God.
and so, 'they' are each other's 'God'
but, also, 'they' -are- One God.
and, back to people,
one could see how it would be possible
for a congregation of people to be of
the same Spirit and, though they may
have distinct personality structures,
their alignment with the Mind of Christ
and revealed knowledge of God would make
it possible for a unity of purpose to exist.
and that's what is sometimes
described as "The Church"
a stone structure built of people
with Christ as foundation and cornerstone
and believe me, i'm not trying
to tell anyone how to live or
how it's -supposed- to be,
only pointing at something people
may recognize in their day to day life
and mentioning something about God.
but it is -probably- why some
people see 'marriage' as sacred.
it's not like something people should
enter in to with the frivolity reserved
for bingo night.
i don't think it's a thing to be entered
in to with the express expectation that
such a union will be disolved in 6 years.
or just to preserve a legal business arrangement.
some people feel that 'marriage'
resembles something about God.
albeit God is One and Jesus Christ
is a stamped express Image of God.
but we also point to Christ
taking "The Church" as Bride.
where "The Church" is Christ's
own Body -and- the Bride of Christ.
and so, you end up hearing suggestions
that married people actually belong
to each other.
like each is the other's person.
and we have Christ as Gift from God
and we belong to God in Christ.
and so, neither is this meant to discourage
those who do not get married to another person,
because, in a sense, they become 'married' to God
and the relationship they keep with God can be
described as such; they seek for themselves only
God's design and not their own, all the while,
God is seeking -their- best interest.
whereas some have suggested that human beings
who do get married tend to seek out the creature
comforts, first, above the spiritual comforts,
and may tend to put them selves first, and yet,
i do not -fault- either, those who get
married nor those who do not.
these are likenesses and being offered as
remarks to increase understanding and not
as ordinances to maintain societal practice.
-because- two people who become married -can-
focus their efforts towards God in just as
vital and effective a manner as one person
who becomes totally devoted to God, and
nothing prevents a single person who is
totally devoted to God, from seeking
out a mate, just that there are difficulties
in this life, like you needed me to tell you that.
so, last little bit,
that's why when you align yourself around
the Truth which is Christ, the two people
who are bringing this third personality
into being have every confidence that
they are enlivening a Love which
is borne of God.
not two people who each seek their own
personal and private benefit, and scratch
and claw each other to death,
but two who seek the benefit of the other
just as Christ seeks the benefit of "The Church"
and God is One in Love
also, we would not suggest this;
"20% of the Holy Spirit is over there and
25% is over there and 50% is over there."
it's just not fruitful to think
of the Holy Spirit along those lines.
so fine, God is One God.
and knowing God is "Love"
you have to grasp that
God is also Two.
you say that God is Two,
when you say God is "Love"
and then you -can- suggest, if you wish
to suggest such things, that the Unity
of the Two is a third unique Entity.
but that third Unique Entity is,
The Fullness of God,
the One God
and this Fullness, we do not interrupt,
if we suggest that the Two, in "Love"
-is- this Fullness of God
now we suggest that the Two as One
is no greater or lesser God than
the One as Two.
first, look at this,
Just God, and no 'other'
God actually lives in the Word of God,
God is that Being whose
Word is, and will become.
that is, the Word God speaks,
happen, the Word is alive,
the Word effects,
and God actually -lives-
_in_ the utterence.
God begins to speak a thing, and God
actually lives in and amid the Word,
and experiences the 'travelling'
-of- the Word -in- the Word.
the Word is no less Spirit
the Word -is- Spirit.
think on this for a moment;
a very simple case, knowing
there are other aspects;
so, you are sitting in a chair
facing another, empty, chair,
and you speak in to the empty chair,
and your words become a fullness
in a chair that was empty.
that is, it's as if you moved from
one chair to the other, and yet,
you are still in the first chair.
and you experienced yourself moving
thru the intermediate space and
appearing in the other chair.
_like_ 'i' speak 'you' in to
a chair, and you call me over.
or, 'we' are sitting in a chair, and
'i' ask 'you' to move over to the
other chair, and then you ask me
to sit in your chair with you.
only, 'you' and 'i' appear, in likeness,
as components of some inexpressible Unity.
somewhat, sort of, like that.
remember now, we are trying to understand something
about God and not just considering human beings, here.
we're talking about an Eternal Deity.
so anyway,
the being in the 'other' chair is really
just an expression of the Love that
was always present in God.
but then, we step back and suggest
that God was -always- Two, whose Love
travelled on the Word, and whose Unity
expressed itself -in- the understanding
of the 'other' Unique Identification.
and Love Moved upon the Face of the Deep.
and They Spoke themselves to and fro.
They are One God, but They Love
and Love speaks of 'the other'
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: considering the analogy |
01 Sep 2006 10:37:02 AM |
|
|
Timothy Sutter <a202010@lycos.com> wrote:
[repeating his exceptionally large amount of noise that started yet
another silly thread]
So I say yet again unto him in return (being too lazy to generate
several hundred more words of tripe in response to his repetition of
his tripe)
God.
but are still in God. but then, we belong to God is why some
inexpressible Unity.
somewhat, sort of, like each is Love traveled on this for bingo night.
i don't think on any of Christ.
and revealed knowledge of the intermediate space and you consider God
to a union of Christ is this of God is One God.
and appearing in the total personality which would make it is Two,
whose Word God and so, last little bit, that's why when you suggest,
if you call me to suggest this third personality structures, their
alignment with the chair that as one could also Two.
first, look at this for a manner as The Church is True, the Word is,
and this life, like something about God.
suppose two people who do not their day to exist.
so, you experienced yourself around the analogy of people with you.
only, and Love also, One in to tell you consider God would be
construed that God and revealed knowledge of the Two
in this Fullness, we suggest that third personality of people should
enter in and we belong to grasp that union of the spiritual comforts
first, above the Love which is a congregation of the two.
well, if we do get married people feel that human beings who are
enlivening a moment a manner as one person who get married to with
Christ and God and not yet learned each other.
like that.
remember now, we belong to the Word God and being in God.
and Jesus Christ as one person who do not like something about the
Love and Spirit along those two, Love
but it possible for a moment a chair is a sense, they seek out the
understanding and so, for themselves only God's design
and yet, you ask to move over there.
it's to seek the other chair.
like something people see as if you moved from each is that married
tend to discourage those who are difficulties in a mate,
just some have Christ and Love traveled on any of the Unique
Identification.
and yet, you are allowed to God, from seeking best interest.
whereas some things about God.
but are bringing this Fullness of God now we have every confidence
that and Love that some inexpressible Unity.
somewhat, sort of Christ seeks the Bride of the Unique Identification.
and ask me to day
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timothy Sutter" |
|
| Title: Re: considering the analogy |
01 Sep 2006 10:44:36 AM |
|
|
considering the analogy
of God to a marriage.
your salvation doesn't depend on any of this,
it's just some things about the nature of this
thing that maybe you might wish to consider.
it is an aspect.
first that and then the bit about God.
suppose two people came together
and each had what can loosely
be described as their
own personalities.
[not considering Azazel's goat at this time]
alright, so, those two, create a third
personality which is comprised of
components from each of the two.
if it could be construed that some
sort of love infused this relationship,
then that third personality would
come to resemble a union of the
total personality of both people.
but, it could also be considered
that as those two people brought
this third personality into being,
that both of them, would grow into
that third personality which is
that union of the two.
well, if you consider God to have
always existed and to have no beginning,
there could be no time at which
to point and say;
"at this time, Word and Spirit were
separate and distinct and 'they' had
not yet learned each other and that
'third' personality, which is the
union of the two did not exist."
so, for 'them' that union of the two,
-is- Love, but because this is True,
the distinguishing characteristics
which would bring distinction, is
so subtle as to be something that
only 'they' -could- recognize.
and so, for all practical
purposes, 'they' are One God.
but -we- are _allowed_ to recognize
this apparent plurality as that
characteristic which would
define Love.
concern for the 'other'
"love your neighbor"
"love you God"
only in the case of God,
"God and neighbor" are
identically God.
and so, 'they' are each other's 'God'
but, also, 'they' -are- One God.
and, back to people,
one could see how it would be possible
for a congregation of people to be of
the same Spirit and, though they may
have distinct personality structures,
their alignment with the Mind of Christ
and revealed knowledge of God would make
it possible for a unity of purpose to exist.
and that's what is sometimes
described as "The Church"
a stone structure built of people
with Christ as foundation and cornerstone
and believe me, i'm not trying
to tell anyone how to live or
how it's -supposed- to be,
only pointing at something people
may recognize in their day to day life
and mentioning something about God.
but it is -probably- why some
people see 'marriage' as sacred.
it's not like something people should
enter in to with the frivolity reserved
for bingo night.
i don't think it's a thing to be entered
in to with the express expectation that
such a union will be disolved in 6 years.
or just to preserve a legal business arrangement.
some people feel that 'marriage'
resembles something about God.
albeit God is One and Jesus Christ
is a stamped express Image of God.
but we also point to Christ
taking "The Church" as Bride.
where "The Church" is Christ's
own Body -and- the Bride of Christ.
and so, you end up hearing suggestions
that married people actually belong
to each other.
like each is the other's person.
and we have Christ as Gift from God
and we belong to God in Christ.
and so, neither is this meant to discourage
those who do not get married to another person,
because, in a sense, they become 'married' to God
and the relationship they keep with God can be
described as such; they seek for themselves only
God's design and not their own, all the while,
God is seeking -their- best interest.
whereas some have suggested that human beings
who do get married tend to seek out the creature
comforts, first, above the spiritual comforts,
and may tend to put them selves first, and yet,
i do not -fault- either, those who get
married nor those who do not.
these are likenesses and being offered as
remarks to increase understanding and not
as ordinances to maintain societal practice.
-because- two people who become married -can-
focus their efforts towards God in just as
vital and effective a manner as one person
who becomes totally devoted to God, and
nothing prevents a single person who is
totally devoted to God, from seeking
out a mate, just that there are difficulties
in this life, like you needed me to tell you that.
so, last little bit,
that's why when you align yourself around
the Truth which is Christ, the two people
who are bringing this third personality
into being have every confidence that
they are enlivening a Love which
is borne of God.
not two people who each seek their own
personal and private benefit, and scratch
and claw each other to death,
but two who seek the benefit of the other
just as Christ seeks the benefit of "The Church"
and God is One in Love
also, we would not suggest this;
"20% of the Holy Spirit is over there and
25% is over there and 50% is over there."
it's just not fruitful to think
of the Holy Spirit along those lines.
so fine, God is One God.
and knowing God is "Love"
you have to grasp that
God is also Two.
you say that God is Two,
when you say God is "Love"
and then you -can- suggest, if you wish
to suggest such things, that the Unity
of the Two is a third unique Entity.
but that third Unique Entity is,
The Fullness of God,
the One God
and this Fullness, we do not interrupt,
if we suggest that the Two, in "Love"
-is- this Fullness of God
now we suggest that the Two as One
is no greater or lesser God than
the One as Two.
first, look at this,
Just God, and no 'other'
God actually lives in the Word of God,
God is that Being whose
Word is, and will become.
that is, the Word God speaks,
happen, the Word is alive,
the Word effects,
and God actually -lives-
_in_ the utterence.
God begins to speak a thing, and God
actually lives in and amid the Word,
and experiences the 'travelling'
-of- the Word -in- the Word.
the Word is no less Spirit
the Word -is- Spirit.
think on this for a moment;
a very simple case, knowing
there are other aspects;
so, you are sitting in a chair
facing another, empty, chair,
and you speak in to the empty chair,
and your words become a fullness
in a chair that was empty.
that is, it's as if you moved from
one chair to the other, and yet,
you are still in the first chair.
and you experienced yourself moving
thru the intermediate space and
appearing in the other chair.
_like_ 'i' speak 'you' in to
a chair, and you call me over.
or, 'we' are sitting in a chair, and
'i' ask 'you' to move over to the
other chair, and then you ask me
to sit in your chair with you.
only, 'you' and 'i' appear, in likeness,
as components of some inexpressible Unity.
somewhat, sort of, like that.
remember now, we are trying to understand something
about God and not just considering human beings, here.
we're talking about an Eternal Deity.
so anyway,
the being in the 'other' chair is really
just an expression of the Love that
was always present in God.
but then, we step back and suggest
that God was -always- Two, whose Love
travelled on the Word, and whose Unity
expressed itself -in- the understanding
of the 'other' Unique Identification.
and Love Moved upon the Face of the Deep.
and They Spoke themselves to and fro.
They are One God, but They Love
and Love speaks of 'the other'
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: considering the analogy |
01 Sep 2006 12:03:46 PM |
|
|
Timothy Sutter <a202010@lycos.com> wrote:
[repeating his verbose noise a third time]
I can only surmise that you insist that I give you a new response,
rather than repeat the old, since the only alternatives are
repetition, new response, or ignoring you.
I'll give you a longer sample, since you weren't satisfied with the
first.
i do get married nor those who do not.
these are trying to be, only recognize.
and this thing to tell you speak in God.
but They are each of this time at this relationship, then that the One
God.
but two people actually lives in a chair facing another, empty, chair,
and we suggest that maybe you speak a legal business arrangement.
some have suggested that God and nothing prevents a union will become.
that such a stamped express Image of the Deep.
and neighbor love infused this Fullness, we are trying to God than the
Two as Two.
you God than the total personality which would make it is the bit
about God.
and, back to have every confidence that married to have to sit in to
live or how it's a Love also, One God.
but They Spoke themselves only recognize. and so, neither is also Two.
you have no time alright, so, last little bit, that's what is also
Two.
first, look at this, it's as one person who do not like that.
so, those who is over there are bringing this time
Word is no beginning
there are bringing this apparent plurality as if you ask to Christ
seeks the other's but, also, we suggest this time, Word the bit about
an Eternal Deity.
so fine, God actually lives in to and fro.
They are One as foundation and we do not.
these are sitting in the One in the Two is also point to God only
God's design and then you consider God is why when you moved from
seeking best interest.
whereas some inexpressible Unity.
Somewhat, sort of, like something about God.
but then, we step back to be considered that some things about God.
and, back to point to tell you suggest, if we step back to discourage
those who get married tend to each seek for a chair, and distinct
personality of this Fullness, we suggest that the two.
well, if it could be of the love your chair with the Bride of the
being offered as sacred.
it's a thing, and not as to grasp that resembles something that third
unique Entity.
but two people who do not considering human beings who seek out the
Unique Identification.
and mentioning something people who get married focus their own Body
the Unity of the other's but, also, One God.
but They Spoke themselves only recognize.
and not fruitful to have no time alright, so, are still in the Face of
God actually in this third personality into being offered as those who
is no time alright, so, you that.
so, for a Love speaks of God is over to the total personality of
people came together
and so, last little bit, that's why when you speak in a stamped
express Image of the Love that characteristic which would come to tell
you experienced yourself around the spiritual comforts, and is that
the frivolity reserved for a very simple case, knowing there are
trying to exist.
and you might wish to speak a marriage.
your words become a chair facing another, empty, chair, and mentioning
something about God.
but it possible for a Love and not trying to grasp that the two people
brought this meant to grasp that as components of Christ taking The
Church is seeking best interest.
whereas some things about God.
not just not get married people actually lives in a very simple case,
knowing there are enlivening a mate, just to seek the same Spirit the
express Image of God would define Love.
concern for the Bride of God, but that such things, that
characteristic which is so fine, God to consider.
it is comprised of some have every confidence that maybe you speak in
their own Body the Two as components from each is comprised of the
union of Christ taking The Church is the while
God and you needed me to understand something people may have
suggested that God only pointing at this, Just God
from God is Christ's own personal and to with the Word of this of God
and had what is that God and God is over there.
it's not just an Eternal Deity.
so subtle as foundation and Spirit is also point and God to consider.
it is that is, the Word is alive, the being have every confidence that
some sort of God
God is really just that married focus their own personal and had what
can loosely be described as to maintain societal practice.
two people see as remarks to tell anyone how it's as their efforts
towards God is a stone structure built of love you are allowed to
death
but we have every confidence that the frivolity reserved for the other
and then that there are other chair, and then that God is Christ, the
other to suggest that some people with the Word, and you needed me to
seek the One God is Two, when you suggest, if you experienced yourself
around the two.
if you are One God.
and distinct personality would be entered in a manner as Christ seeks
the Word.
the two people who get married tend to God, God and private benefit,
and not interrupt, if we belong to tell anyone how to each seek their
day life and then you God speaks, happen, the other chair.
like speak a fullness in and may recognize in the Unique
Identification.
and not their day life and so, for bingo night.
i do not exist.
and God and we have always present in Love which would make it is
Christ, the express Image of the total personality into being, that
and this Fullness, we have no God begins to tell anyone how to
understand something that there are difficulties in the Word, and
appearing in the utterance.
God is no beginning, there are likenesses and appearing in and so, you
align yourself around the Word the Mind of God.
lojbab
Surely, that is all the consideration that the analogy deserves.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timothy Sutter" |
|
| Title: Re: considering the analogy |
01 Sep 2006 01:22:52 PM |
|
|
considering the analogy
of God to a marriage.
your salvation doesn't depend on any of this,
it's just some things about the nature of this
thing that maybe you might wish to consider.
it is an aspect.
first that and then the bit about God.
suppose two people came together
and each had what can loosely
be described as their
own personalities.
[not considering Azazel's goat at this time]
alright, so, those two, create a third
personality which is comprised of
components from each of the two.
if it could be construed that some
sort of love infused this relationship,
then that third personality would
come to resemble a union of the
total personality of both people.
but, it could also be considered
that as those two people brought
this third personality into being,
that both of them, would grow into
that third personality which is
that union of the two.
well, if you consider God to have
always existed and to have no beginning,
there could be no time at which
to point and say;
"at this time, Word and Spirit were
separate and distinct and 'they' had
not yet learned each other and that
'third' personality, which is the
union of the two did not exist."
so, for 'them' that union of the two,
-is- Love, but because this is True,
the distinguishing characteristics
which would bring distinction, is
so subtle as to be something that
only 'they' -could- recognize.
and so, for all practical
purposes, 'they' are One God.
but -we- are _allowed_ to recognize
this apparent plurality as that
characteristic which would
define Love.
concern for the 'other'
"love your neighbor"
"love you God"
only in the case of God,
"God and neighbor" are
identically God.
and so, 'they' are each other's 'God'
but, also, 'they' -are- One God.
and, back to people,
one could see how it would be possible
for a congregation of people to be of
the same Spirit and, though they may
have distinct personality structures,
their alignment with the Mind of Christ
and revealed knowledge of God would make
it possible for a unity of purpose to exist.
and that's what is sometimes
described as "The Church"
a stone structure built of people
with Christ as foundation and cornerstone
and believe me, i'm not trying
to tell anyone how to live or
how it's -supposed- to be,
only pointing at something people
may recognize in their day to day life
and mentioning something about God.
but it is -probably- why some
people see 'marriage' as sacred.
it's not like something people should
enter in to with the frivolity reserved
for bingo night.
i don't think it's a thing to be entered
in to with the express expectation that
such a union will be disolved in 6 years.
or just to preserve a legal business arrangement.
some people feel that 'marriage'
resembles something about God.
albeit God is One and Jesus Christ
is a stamped express Image of God.
but we also point to Christ
taking "The Church" as Bride.
where "The Church" is Christ's
own Body -and- the Bride of Christ.
and so, you end up hearing suggestions
that married people actually belong
to each other.
like each is the other's person.
and we have Christ as Gift from God
and we belong to God in Christ.
and so, neither is this meant to discourage
those who do not get married to another person,
because, in a sense, they become 'married' to God
and the relationship they keep with God can be
described as such; they seek for themselves only
God's design and not their own, all the while,
God is seeking -their- best interest.
whereas some have suggested that human beings
who do get married tend to seek out the creature
comforts, first, above the spiritual comforts,
and may tend to put them selves first, and yet,
i do not -fault- either, those who get
married nor those who do not.
these are likenesses and being offered as
remarks to increase understanding and not
as ordinances to maintain societal practice.
-because- two people who become married -can-
focus their efforts towards God in just as
vital and effective a manner as one person
who becomes totally devoted to God, and
nothing prevents a single person who is
totally devoted to God, from seeking
out a mate, just that there are difficulties
in this life, like you needed me to tell you that.
so, last little bit,
that's why when you align yourself around
the Truth which is Christ, the two people
who are bringing this third personality
into being have every confidence that
they are enlivening a Love which
is borne of God.
not two people who each seek their own
personal and private benefit, and scratch
and claw each other to death,
but two who seek the benefit of the other
just as Christ seeks the benefit of "The Church"
and God is One in Love
also, we would not suggest this;
"20% of the Holy Spirit is over there and
25% is over there and 50% is over there."
it's just not fruitful to think
of the Holy Spirit along those lines.
so fine, God is One God.
and knowing God is "Love"
you have to grasp that
God is also Two.
you say that God is Two,
when you say God is "Love"
and then you -can- suggest, if you wish
to suggest such things, that the Unity
of the Two is a third unique Entity.
but that third Unique Entity is,
The Fullness of God,
the One God
and this Fullness, we do not interrupt,
if we suggest that the Two, in "Love"
-is- this Fullness of God
now we suggest that the Two as One
is no greater or lesser God than
the One as Two.
first, look at this,
Just God, and no 'other'
God actually lives in the Word of God,
God is that Being whose
Word is, and will become.
that is, the Word God speaks,
happen, the Word is alive,
the Word effects,
and God actually -lives-
_in_ the utterence.
God begins to speak a thing, and God
actually lives in and amid the Word,
and experiences the 'travelling'
-of- the Word -in- the Word.
the Word is no less Spirit
the Word -is- Spirit.
think on this for a moment;
a very simple case, knowing
there are other aspects;
so, you are sitting in a chair
facing another, empty, chair,
and you speak in to the empty chair,
and your words become a fullness
in a chair that was empty.
that is, it's as if you moved from
one chair to the other, and yet,
you are still in the first chair.
and you experienced yourself moving
thru the intermediate space and
appearing in the other chair.
_like_ 'i' speak 'you' in to
a chair, and you call me over.
or, 'we' are sitting in a chair, and
'i' ask 'you' to move over to the
other chair, and then you ask me
to sit in your chair with you.
only, 'you' and 'i' appear, in likeness,
as components of some inexpressible Unity.
somewhat, sort of, like that.
remember now, we are trying to understand something
about God and not just considering human beings, here.
we're talking about an Eternal Deity.
so anyway,
the being in the 'other' chair is really
just an expression of the Love that
was always present in God.
but then, we step back and suggest
that God was -always- Two, whose Love
travelled on the Word, and whose Unity
expressed itself -in- the understanding
of the 'other' Unique Identification.
and Love Moved upon the Face of the Deep.
and They Spoke themselves to and fro.
They are One God, but They Love
and Love speaks of 'the other'
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timothy Sutter" |
|
| Title: Re: considering the analogy |
01 Sep 2006 01:24:20 PM |
|
|
God is Breathing eternally God.
when the breathing Spirit moves forward
in some utterance, this Word brings
the Spirit in to a 'new place'
a 'new place' that comes in to being
simultaneously with the utterance.
before this beginning, God knows God
as the private inspiration of God.
before this beginning, Love is a
private matter known only in God.
one can suggest that The Word which is
always present in Spirit and with Spirit
summarily formulates an encapsulation
of God's own Spirit, and,
as God speaks
this unseen Word, that which was not seen,
becomes seen, and God is beginning to show
that which God has always known.
in this beginning, of material and
non-material structures, is seen the
evidence of the unseen Word
and, as
the unseen Word is made manifest,
so also, the Spirit is realized
in this 'new place'
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timothy Sutter" |
|
| Title: Re: considering the analogy |
01 Sep 2006 01:24:46 PM |
|
|
strange is the singular declaration
made by God and conceived in
the human Mary,
is
different from the multiple
declarations made by God which
resulted in the material universe.
which is to say: the material universe
is brought forth in discrete stages,
whereas
Jesus,
that ultimate manifestation of The Word,
came about in one complete declaration.
one minor detail;
there is first, a declaration which
results in the conception in Mary,
and later, two declarations
of support for the human
being so formed,
which is to say, the thunder
from the blue which states;
"this is My Son in whom
i am well pleased"
and then;
"this is My Son, listen to Him"
and then, Jesus is -declared-
"first born from the dead"
but each time here,
it's stamping the same
general remark upon
the human race.
a remark of God's own completeness and
Holiness upon a material creation that
was made to stand apart from God, suffered
paling anguish in comparison to God, and
is redeemed to a station of Unity in God.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timothy Sutter" |
|
| Title: Re: considering the analogy |
01 Sep 2006 01:25:10 PM |
|
|
if we say that each declaration made by God
carries an exacting image of God's own presence,
then, the multiple declarations made in bringing
forth the material universe, each resemble
particular manifestations of Theistic attribution,
whereas, that singular declaration which
conceives Christ, is the Spirit made Word
made material.
God has taken hold of this 'new place' and
the multiple manifestations all reside as One.
The Word made manifest is God,
but, a summed duplication of God is not God,
this drama serves first to demonstrate
with crystal clarity that God is God
and there can be no other God.
while God knew that God's own Spirit
would be presented with undeniable
clarity in God's own Word,
God can also be aware that any summation
of all Theistic attribution would remain
short of the Fullness of Deity in Love,
but, any lack of recognition of God's
Ultimate Preeminence in All
found in any summed
duplication of God's attributes must
be met with the strictest Judgement
until such time as God's own Mercy
is to be correspondingly bestowed.
to be 'not God' is not a crime.
to be 'not God' and not comprehend,
must be treated as a crime.
such chastizement is unutterably profound
subsequently, the removal of all blot is
Joy unspeakable and full of Glory.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timothy Sutter" |
|
| Title: Re: considering the analogy |
01 Sep 2006 01:25:30 PM |
|
|
God acts according to God's own Will
founded in that Love which human beings
aspire to comprehend.
God spins out a governing authority
as independant Beings.
before we examine the purpose to which
these independant Beings were spun out,
we would consider that in spinning out
these structural elements as independant
characteristics, these elements first take
on the attribute of 'not God' inasmuch as
they become as creations, and therefore,
God must redeem these structural elements,
themselves, in to full unity with God.
what could be considered strange, is that
any of these God breathed characteristics
could turn around, and view God as subject
to -it's- authority.
so, now, looking at this view, we can
easily see a potential for God's own
creation to turn on God and convince
itself that God belongs in
-its- dominion.
the Creator being ruled by a creation.
such authority as God already possesses
in God's own Perfect Will in Love.
God acts according to God's
own Will founded in Love.
such a turnaround could found a Selfish
elevation which would nullify ·that·
creation's claim to Love, the defining
characteristic of God.
should such a turnaround occur, its reckoning
as a potential hazzard would already have been
recognized, but still, it will remain as a
controversy in any creation that would desire
to subjugate that perfect Will of God.
in so doing,
·that· creation stymies its own freedom.
in so doing,
·that· creation distorts it's
view of Self to deny that
perfect Will of God.
in so doing,
·that· creation captures itself in a snare.
to aspire to God by denying that to which it aspires
it must deny it's own God breathed characteristics
and distort it's own view of it's own authority.
meanwhile, God is still God and only Loves.
but, ·that· unruly ruler has fallen headlong
in to a morass of irrational justifications.
whereas, ideally it would have it's
independant will in submission to
the unity of God's perfect
Will in Love,
it now has two ·competing· wills
it has birthed an indecisive
competition with it·self which
it also translates into an
adversarial position against
God, its Creator.
Self destruction is immenent
freeze it there for a while...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timothy Sutter" |
|
| Title: Re: considering the analogy |
01 Sep 2006 01:25:51 PM |
|
|
God acts according to God's own Will
founded in that Love which human beings
aspire to comprehend.
we could call this True autonomy.
behaving independantly according to personal will,
coupled with designs only to carry those admirable,
harmless and benevolent actions borne out of Love.
as God grants autonomy to its creations, we would
not consider it harmless and benevolent to allow
any creation to fixate on its own attributes
to the point of self destructive idolatry.
and so, should such a situation arise, during the
subsequent course of extracting such a creation
from it's self induced strugglings, if God appears
to 'smite' that creation with harsh criticisms,
we may still conclude that these criticisms are
borne out of an admirable Love.
even if that criticism involves removal
of autonomy and exacting demonstrations
of shortfall.
so, we should conclude that God's meting
out Justice is itself borne out of Love
and alone accomplishes the most Merciful ends.
it is not that God's work is purposefully 'booby-trapped'
but it is as if, in spinning out autonomous figures,
God stands at the door when those autonomous figures
seek an immediate return to the domain of God,
and now, God at the door represents a stumbling stone.
there is no way around God at the door,
because God is the door, and the desire
towards True autonomy is all pervasive.
there is this fine line tripwire which
is simply inherent in the situation.
in God as perfect Unity in Love the good
of the neighbor is exactly the good of God,
but, as God spins out these autonomous figures,
these new creatures must confront the motivating
forces towards True autonomy coupled with the
overriding necessity to cede 'all others' their
own personal autonomy.
and so, when these newly spun autonomous figures
are able to see their own good in and as the good
of all others, they succeed, but as any see their
own personal good as of primary and even sole
importance, they fall short.
and i mean, fall headlong over the stumbling stone.
and so, what may seem to us as
unbearably harsh chastizements,
is simply God falling with the stumbler,
and being there to lift 'it' back up
in newness of Life.
God never pushed it down, it fell.
and God alone can make it rise again.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timothy Sutter" |
|
| Title: Re: considering the analogy |
01 Sep 2006 03:45:02 PM |
|
|
# you trust this person,
# and your trust is well placed.
this ends up addressing two aspects.
first you address the nature of this trust
and find it can be traced back to God and the
beginning of creation and then you find that
because you can trace this sort of detail back
to the same old story, that you can say that
this strengthens the view of the same old story
as that much more representative of the 'truth'.
meaning, because you can add another detail
to your description, that your description more
and more resembles the way things are.
so anyway;
there's trust, and for you, the human being who
is just waking up from a long nap, this trust is
centered entirely in you. meaning, you have yet
to actually place your trust in anyone as of yet.
so, you decide to trust another person whom
you've only just met and of whom you have
limited prior knowledge .
at first, this trust is purely, faith based, on your part.
to keep this as simple as possible for now,
we won't mention that you don't know yourself
all that well seeing as how you just woke up
from a long nap and you've never placed your
trust in anyone else before.
so, just stash that detail in the back of your mind.
right now, as a given, we say that you can trust your self.
this because we first want to address how God
could see things, and then, maybe we can come
back and look at what can go wrong.
like we keep one variable fixed so we can
look at the way an other variable behaves.
our old convoluted friend.
just remember, everyone knows and
can cite what dear Paul said about things;
"now, we see thru a glass and darkly,
but then clearly for we shall
see God as God is"
so, we've never denied that we, as
human beings, get a filtered image.
we simply suggest that as we use and hone
our sensory apparatus, both physical and spiritual,
that we can place more credence in what these tell us.
and that is the second part of the first sentence.
anyway, in the same manner as we traced "Love"
back to an image of God, and said that God as
complete 'parental' figure could be viewed as having
a nature that seems to be a Unity of two unique and
complementary identities that together form a third
total identitity which is all simply One God,
we can now look at trust as if that stems
from this perfect Love which is God.
just as if you were to call both
of your parents, together as one, "the Father"
only "the Father" is Justice and Mercy,
Word and Spirit, Love and Love and
sees no conflict.
whereas, human beings are lacking completeness,
and so, in general and quite often, the parental
figure we see is disjointed and polarized.
right off the bat, you see two people, where in God,
no one at all knows the full depths of God but God
and to whomever God reveals God.
so, i wrote a piece on a view of God
analogous to a marriage of sorts.
what's sort of funny, is that we never 'see'
any thing of the complete "the Father"
but have been gifted with "the Son"
who is that perfected -Image- of the
complete "the Father"
God doesn't need to split imagery up
into pink is for boys and blue is for girls.
God doesn't say, "Mercy is a female
quality and Justice is a male quality"
this because these qualities have zero
dependance upon sexual gender identification.
not even sure that a billy goat actually
could recognize such a thing as justice
or that a lady lion has any knowledge
of that which is mercy.
so, when and if we suggest that "the Father"
is a -complete- parental figure, we still don't
split this figure up into light and dark meat.
we have no right to categorize aspects
of God's own spirit into classes that are
dictated by our own flesh.
so, anyway, God trusts God as if the knowledge
were so intimate that no apparent component
could possibly hide anything from the other.
'they' have always known each other
so much so that no thing else can even
distinguish that there is any sort
of bifurcation at all.
so, back to you and other human beings.
obviously, you cannot claim an intimate
knowledge with someone you have just met,
and you can claim that there are, most definitely,
two people and not some singular entity.
but, in this example, you can claim that you
have trust and that you know what trust is
and that you can use your trust with someone
whom you have only just met.
long story short;
what begins as a 'faith' issue on your part
grows into a 'knowledge' issue on both parts.
where your faith is transformed into knowledge
by successful interactions of uncertain designs
coming into fruition.
uncertain only because they have yet to appear.
Timothy Sutter wrote:
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timothy Sutter" |
|
| Title: Re: considering the analogy |
01 Sep 2006 03:45:39 PM |
|
|
anyway, in the same manner as we traced "Love"
back to an image of God, and said that God as
complete 'parental' figure could be viewed as having
a nature that seems to be a Unity of two unique and
complementary identities that together form a third
total identitity which is all simply One God,
we can now look at trust as if that stems
from this perfect Love which is God.
as another little side remark, what may
be sort of funny is that God is something
like the twisted helical stranded structure
of the dna molecule.
and i mean -like-
not identical to.
like this sort of thing;
fixed width font;
___ ___ ___
....___/ \____/ \___/ \___...
\___/ \___/ \___/
look, there are places where it's just one line
and then branchings which give a virtual impression
of duality, and union joining and separations
are inherent aspects of God's own make-up.
and you see this sort of thing
over and over again in Genesis.
divide unify divide unify divide unify...
the immediate conclusion we -don't-
jump to is that God is at war with God.
no moreso than one could conclude that
cell division is a phenomenon associated
with conflict and animosities.
just that this idea of apparent division is
that phenomenon which proves that God
is One God.
Love as Justice and Mercy more reflects
the splitting of white light into component
colors than any disintegration into total darkness.
but you've heard these things before.
and we can begin to see the forms
of God's initiation of the creation.
as examples, not that God
-is- electromagnetic radiation,
but that God's own personality and
Spirit may -resemble- things of this nature.
so, say we do have something like
white light splitting into multiplex colors.
and then we have God, splitting out a variety
of independant personality structures which
each resemble -like- a color.
like several independant facets of God's
own nature each get a being of their own,
not that God cedes away this facet of God's
personality, but that God recognizes it as a
structured portion, splits it out and gives
it a spirit of it's own.
God still maintaining God's totallity.
i'm still meddling with this bit.
------------------------------------
Mercy ------ Joy ------ Justice
/ \ / \
/ \ / \
Spirit \ / Word
/ \ / \ /
/ \Justice --- Patience--- Mercy/
Love__/_____________\____________________/_________Love
\ / \
\ /Mercy --- Patience--- Justice\
\ / \ / \
Word / \ Spirit
\ / \ /
\ / \ /
Justice ------ Joy ------ Mercy
Timothy Sutter wrote:
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timothy Sutter" |
|
| Title: Re: considering the analogy |
01 Sep 2006 03:50:56 PM |
|
|
look, there are places where it's just one line
and then branchings which give a virtual impression
of duality, and union joining and separations
are inherent aspects of God's own make-up.
Love as Justice and Mercy more reflects
the splitting of white light into component
colors than any disintegration into total darkness.
just as a for instance;
Mercy ------ Joy ------ Justice
/ \ / \
/ \ / \
Spirit \ / Word
/ \ / \ /
/ \Justice --- Patience--- Mercy/
Love__/_____________\____________________/_________Love
\ / \
\ /Mercy --- Patience--- Justice\
\ / \ / \
Word / \ Spirit
\ / \ /
\ / \ /
Justice ------ Joy ------ Mercy
anyway, i could add in things like
peace, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
gentleness and self-control, and make
a very fine wiring diagram.
seeing as these would be
considered 'fruit of the Spirit'
then we can safely consider
them as attributes the
Spirit has or is.
but, "my words are spirit"
so, anyway, you get the general idea.
it's just that in God as Total Preeminent Being,
God is Both God and 'neighbor', that is,
Love for God and Love for 'neighbor' are
tied together in an apparent duality of sorts.
but 'they' are One God,
and we can't even suggest that a given
attribute is the sole possession of 'part'
of God, because 'they' are not parted.
but we can speak of it as a complementary
nature with apparent forks which are, in themselves,
expressions of this Love which is God in totallity.
and then we come to address the Creation.
again.
i'll work on it...
---------------------------------------
anyway, it seemed compelling so i tried to meddle with it.
whats funny is that to a first approximation,
this diagram below sort of models the "Mind of Christ."
it is funny because it seems to have two hemispheres
and it's all interconnected and convoluted like a brain.
'first approximation'
just as a for instance; [fixed width font]
=================
Mercy --- Joy Faithfulness -- Self-control Patience --- Justice
/ \ / \ / \
/ \ / \ / \
Spirit \/ / \ Word
/ \ / \ / \ / \
/ Justice -- Peace Kindness -- Goodness Gentleness --- Mercy \
Love_/_____________\ \ \ /__________Love
\ / \ \ \ /
\ Mercy -- Peace Kindness -- Goodness Gentleness ---- Justice /
\ / \ / \ / \ /
Word / \ \ / Spirit
\ / \ / \ /
\ / \ / \ /
Justice --- Joy Faithfulness -- Self-control Patience --- Mercy
===================
see, if you consider that God thinks in a manner somewhat
generalized by this diagram, you can easily see that God
is not in some interminable argument with God.
and God's Creativity is an expression of this Love.
see, the interpersonal adversary forsook
this Love for a parade of Self.
which i would like to look at in a bit.
the mind of the adversary takes
on a quarrelsome and conflicted nature.
internally darkened.
in a bit...
some more diagrams;
=======1
Faithfulness
/ \
Mercy Kindness \ Justice
/ \ / \ / \
/ Patience Joy \
/ \
Spirit Word
\ /
\ Self-control Peace /
\ / \ / \ /
Justice Gentleness / Mercy
\ /
\ /
Love
/ \
/ \
Justice Gentleness \ Mercy
/ \ / \ / \
/ Self-control Peace \
/ \
Word Spirit
\ /
\ Patience Joy /
\ / \ / \ /
Mercy Kindness / Justice
\ /
Faithfulness
=======
=======2
Faithfulness
Mercy Kindness \ Justice
/ Patience \ Joy \
/ Love \
Spirit / \ Word
\ Self-control / Peace /
Justice Gentleness / Mercy
Love Love Love Love
Justice Gentleness \ Mercy
/ Self-control \ Peace \
Word \ / Spirit
\ Love /
\ Patience / Joy /
Mercy Kindness / Justice
Faithfulness
=====
=======3
Faithfulness
/ \
Mercy Kindness \ Justice
/ \ / \ \ / \
/ Patience \ Joy \
/ Love \
Spirit / \ Word
\ / \ /
\ Self-control / Peace /
\ / \ / / \ /
Justice Gentleness / Mercy
/ \ / \ / \
/ \ / \ / \
Love Love Love Love
\ / \ / \ /
\ / \ / \ /
Justice Gentleness \ Mercy
/ \ / \ \ / \
/ Self-control \ Peace \
/ \ / \
Word \ / Spirit
\ Love /
\ Patience / Joy /
\ / \ / / \ /
Mercy Kindness / Justice
\ /
Faithfulness
Timothy Sutter wrote:
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timothy Sutter" |
|
| Title: Re: considering the analogy |
02 Sep 2006 06:22:26 AM |
|
|
# so fine, God is One God.
# and knowing God is "Love"
and how do we know this?
we demonstrated that no trigger
of metastability -could- exist
to initiate material genesis.
we assigned the absolute
necessity for Creative origin.
and Creative origin -is- Love.
that -is- part of what -it- is.
in part, Love -is- Creative origin.
remember the linguistics bit.
in the final analysis,
the object defines itself.
the semantic triggers
do not define the object.
"purple fragrant sweet spicy and floral"
does not define "lavendar"
the object itself, held
in your grubby little paws,
-that- defines "lavendar"
and while "Love Creator Savior Counsellor Comforter..."
may trigger "God" in your mind,
when we say "Love is Creation"
we are calling a thing by what it is.
but that which defines God -is- God.
when God overshadows your consciousness,
then you can say that you know God.
you cannot say that you know God by
delineating a set of memory triggers.
any more than you can say that
you know lavendar by delineating
a set of its attributes.
that is, if i inspect lavendar,
and set down a list of attributes,
and you come along and convince
yourself that you comprehend
the entire listing,
even if my listing is painfully detailed,
all you will ever know is my description.
that is, until you pick up
a sprig of it yourself.
long story short;
when you examine a sprig of lavendar,
-that- is -your- knowledge of that thing.
-not- -my- painfully detailed description.
so, we use the term "Love"
in our description of God.
and now, all we wish to do
is to cordom off "Love" to
some first approximation,
as Creation.
having already demonstrated that
Creative origin is necessitated
by material genesis.
not and never that some -thing-
set off a metastable trigger to
initiate the material genesis,
but that no such metastable trigger
-can- exist, and therefore, by necessity,
a purposeful, directed, creative event
-must- have initiated genesis.
and we define both the event
and the event maker as "Love"
and then, we seek to broaden
out our definition of "Love"
to more thoroughly describe
the state of affairs, -before-
the first Creative event.
the Creative event is an expression of Love
the Creator is what Love is.
and, a Creative event does
not speak of selfish desires.
a Creative event does not suggest;
"I and Only I"
and so, we say that "Love"
is an outward effusion
from One to an Other,
because a Creative event flows out
of a Creator and is received
with applesauce [applause]
when and if we inspect the
Creation of the Spirit Host
we'll see that the same sort
of thing applies there as well.
but, that Spirit Host applauded
the Creation of the Material universe.
all we suggest is that God, also,
applauded the Creation of the
Spirit Host -by- God.
that is, when God began to Create for God,
God applauded this effort as a proof of "Love"
a proof of a thing -they- already knew by Faith.
and you get this cyclic roundabout,
they are Love, they Create, they are One God,
they Create, they are One God, they are Love,
they are One God, they are Love, they Create.
now, you'll see funny things by
going back and forth to attenuate
your vision.
God spoke the material in to existance
and then, -formed- man from the stuff.
God didn't -speak- man in
to existance, at first.
God is now speaking God in to man thru Faith.
and God is forging a new creation
in man that is exactly like God.
God's image of man as image of God
began to be perfected when God pulled
out the companion from within the man.
before the companion was pulled out,
the companion was hidden, even to man.
in God, the Companion dwells within
and is not experienced by any
other but God.
but, the Companion is God.
in a sense, man is to image of God as
'list of attributes' is to knowledge
of 'lavender'
that is, man is like a list of attributes
that describe God in likeness, but God
-is- the thing itself.
like, for instance, man's 'sight' is a sort
of 'description' of God's sight in a similar
manner as a paragraph of words that describe
human sight is not human sight itself but
only a description of human sight.
like, if you say things like;
"light bounces off of some object and impinges
on the pins and cones in the retina and leaves
an inverted image of that particular object
which is transmitted to the brain on neurons
and a person 'sees' the object in 'his' mind"
this description is -not- human sight itself,
but a wordy description of the thing itself,
and now, we do a recursion and say that human
sight itself, is just a descriptive image
-of- God's own vision.
where God's own vision is not filtered in any manner.
see, man is -only- an 'image' of God.
God is the defining knowledge of God.
man is only somewhat -like- God.
but -they- had poor communication.
for instance, those Two that were One Flesh
-somewhat- like, as God is One God, fell short
of that Unity which -is- God and experienced
a 'want' within each other than blinded
their 'eyes to God'.
snuffed out their 'lamps'
before they were ever lit.
we may say that God formed the Spirit Host
from a God-breathed substance of Faith
and we've mentioned, at some lengths,
the "want" experienced in Lucifer. and
how this revealed a "darkened"
understanding.
"Micha el" who is also, 'like God'
remained Faithful, and stands
as testament to God's Love.
has no want
knows no sin
bows before Christ.
YHWH is God of Gods.
this, while unknowing of the 'Companion'
a 'Companion' "Micha el" comes
to understand thru -our- message.
in fact, we -are- "Micha el's"
knowledge of the Companion.
a knowledge we gain thru the
indwelling of The Holy Spirit.
and Love is perfected.
this is the condensed version.
but one taste of God's Love
and the scales will drop from your eyes.
and, in an instant,
in the twinkling of an eye,
you'll realize
God is Love.
this isn't finished.
if it looks like there are gaps and
'blind' spots, chalk it up to our nature.
on closer inspection, new levels of
missing connectivity are bound to appear
which we can paint in with finer
and finer strokes.
but we say that God, not only has a far wider
field of vision, all encompassing, if you will,
but, that God has the cognitive structure to focus
on the entire spectrum of 'events' in some
simultaneous manner which 'sees' things
as they actually are.
our focus attentuates over time,
God's sight is everywhere in focus.
we look far, we look close,
and time stands between the two.
God sees far and close in the same instant.
God -must- have mercy on us.
accept it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Merlin" |
|
| Title: Re: considering the analogy |
01 Sep 2006 07:57:01 AM |
|
|
name a christian that has met god..........
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timothy Sutter" |
|
| Title: Re: considering the analogy |
01 Sep 2006 08:00:37 AM |
|
|
Merlin wrote:
name a christian that has met god..........
Timothy Sutter
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
