Does being under supernatural control exonerate Eve of any sin?

[French Patriot]

Frenchie,
I think I will play along to see if we can bring this business to some sort of resolve.
Ok. So, yah da da, blah de blah, God according to you is evil and you "prove" it here because God didn't stop Eve from gobbling down the apple nor did he stop Satan. If God be God, and if he be a "good" god he should stop all evil and never allowed any evil. Well....that is about as far as I can go with this notion. I don't agree with your opinion, I think you underestimate the capacities God gave Adam & Eve. He did not revoke those capacities when he saw them about to take a very wrong turn. Anyway,
WHAT IS YOUR POINT???? I thought you were an atheist? Why do you have it out for the Biblical God.

Ahhh.. I recant for a moment. Well, I recant in part. I will grant you that you have a valid question in there somewhere. Why did God allow things to unfold as he did? Why did he not prevent all the "evil". Why did he not end the "experiment". What sort of God is this? Well, these are valid questions.

Yes they are.


First. A & E did not sin as it is a virtue to ignore really dumb commands to stay in ignorant bliss and quite stupid. Not even bright enough to know you are naked.


Second. God, even if A & E did sin, over reacted and murdered them through neglect and locking away what would keep them alive. The tree of life.


I am not an atheist. I am a Gnostic Christian and we have traditionally judged that the Christians are quite immoral in their beliefs.


I offer the reasons why and Christians are not refuting anything as they cannot.


I am sure you have noticed that here. They bitch a lot but cannot refute anything I say as iut is all true and moral.


Regards
DL

Forbidden-Eden(F-Eden)


Eden.
Heaven Above.
Help Us;
Save This Love.

Raven.
Eye's Above.
Save us;
From The Forbidden One-1.

________________________

Wasn't it Eve who tempted Adam?

Damn Women are always to blame...Instigate everything...Pure EVIL!..The Ultimate Temptation.

Tempted! You mean saved from being a moron for all of his life.


Without the knowledge of good and evil, one has the knowledge of almost nothing.


Regards
DL

 

[cj44]

Frenchie, Why do you call yourself a gnostic Christian. Why use the word Christian?

 

[L Gilbert]

Frenchie, Why do you call yourself a gnostic Christian. Why use the word Christian?

"Gnosticism is primarily defined in a Christian context.[6][7] In the past, some scholars thought that gnosticism predated Christianity and included pre-Christian religious beliefs and spiritual practices argued to be common to early Christianity, Neoplatonism, Hellenistic Judaism, Greco-Roman mystery religions, and Zoroastrianism (especially Zurvanism). The discussion of gnosticism changed radically with the discovery of the Nag Hammadi library and led to a revision of older assumptions. To date, no pre-Christian gnostic texts have been found,[8] and gnosticism as a unique and recognizable belief system is typically considered to be a second century (or later) development.[9]" - wiki

 

[DaSleeper]

free will.

Thread closed.

Meanwhile enjoy these clips of wildebeests crossing the mara.

wildebeest crossing the mara river - youtube

wildebeest crossing mara river - youtube

gnu crossing am mara river - wildebeest crossing at the mara-river - youtube

wildebeest migration mara river crossing - youtube

bump!

 

[darkbeaver]

"Gnosticism is primarily defined in a Christian context.[6][7] In the past, some scholars thought that gnosticism predated Christianity and included pre-Christian religious beliefs and spiritual practices argued to be common to early Christianity, Neoplatonism, Hellenistic Judaism, Greco-Roman mystery religions, and Zoroastrianism (especially Zurvanism). The discussion of gnosticism changed radically with the discovery of the Nag Hammadi library and led to a revision of older assumptions. To date, no pre-Christian gnostic texts have been found,[8] and gnosticism as a unique and recognizable belief system is typically considered to be a second century (or later) development.[9]" - wiki

When it comes to dealing with forces that lie in the super-realm of the intangible, the immeasurable, the imperceptible and unknowable, science has nothing to say. Hence science and religion part company at the point where, in such terms as have come into usage to express the concepts, the phenomena with which science can deal, the physical, pass into the category of the metaphysical. Here, in a loose form of expression, is where science drops out of the competition and religion steps in.

119​

With regard to the world of the metaphysical, the spiritual, the mystical, science is simply, and from its basic nature, justifiably agnostic. It declares that it has no ground for certitude in exploring that "upper" region. It knows of no laws, no certain principles governing the play of forces in that area of consciousness. The phenomena are undependable and unpredictable, not to say lawless, whimsical, sporadic, bizarre and irregular. Science does not deny categorically that they are real in their domain, valid as experience and authentic, possessing genuine values. But it forswears any judgments upon them because it, as said, lacks the means of verification. Religion is not its province.
Therefore its field of investigation is confined to the lower half of the scale of vibrational energies lying below the mid-point at which man injects his budding self-consciousness into the process, a region which, as our earlier thesis asserted, is the area of the operation of God’s subconscious mind. The phenomena of that domain, being under the rulership of the cosmic mentality, manifest invariable regularity, certitude and predictability. So science confines its scrutiny to nature, whose activities can be studied with the assurance of dependable knowledge. Here the operation of law can be discerned.THE ULTIMATE CANON OF KNOWLEDGE

 

[L Gilbert]

When it comes to dealing with forces that lie in the super-realm of the intangible, the immeasurable, the imperceptible and unknowable, science has nothing to say. Hence science and religion part company at the point where, in such terms as have come into usage to express the concepts, the phenomena with which science can deal, the physical, pass into the category of the metaphysical. Here, in a loose form of expression, is where science drops out of the competition and religion steps in.

119​

With regard to the world of the metaphysical, the spiritual, the mystical, science is simply, and from its basic nature, justifiably agnostic. It declares that it has no ground for certitude in exploring that "upper" region. It knows of no laws, no certain principles governing the play of forces in that area of consciousness. The phenomena are undependable and unpredictable, not to say lawless, whimsical, sporadic, bizarre and irregular. Science does not deny categorically that they are real in their domain, valid as experience and authentic, possessing genuine values. But it forswears any judgments upon them because it, as said, lacks the means of verification. Religion is not its province.
Therefore its field of investigation is confined to the lower half of the scale of vibrational energies lying below the mid-point at which man injects his budding self-consciousness into the process, a region which, as our earlier thesis asserted, is the area of the operation of God’s subconscious mind. The phenomena of that domain, being under the rulership of the cosmic mentality, manifest invariable regularity, certitude and predictability. So science confines its scrutiny to nature, whose activities can be studied with the assurance of dependable knowledge. Here the operation of law can be discerned.THE ULTIMATE CANON OF KNOWLEDGE

I agree, but all things considered, without such things as facts and evidence that point to a conclusion, anything can be concluded and anything that leads to this sort of conclusion is supposition and conjecture.

 

[Sal]

I agree, but all things considered, without such things as facts and evidence that point to a conclusion, anything can be concluded and anything that leads to this sort of conclusion is supposition and conjecture.

Is that really any different than say 3 scientists who examine the same set of experiments and reach 3 different conclusions. And then years later a 4th scientist comes a long with a new eye and realizes they were all wrong?

 

[L Gilbert]

Is that really any different than say 3 scientists who examine the same set of experiments and reach 3 different conclusions. And then years later a 4th scientist comes a long with a new eye and realizes they were all wrong?

I swhat any different? Just plucking a supposition out of thin air and ever after acting as if it were fact? Yes because facts point to a certain conclusion, suppositions can suggest anything an imagination wants them to.

 

[French Patriot]

Frenchie, Why do you call yourself a gnostic Christian. Why use the word Christian?

Tradition and because as in the old days, Gnostic Christians believe that we were the true church of that day as we were not literalists and did not tie ourselves to the four gospels the then Orthodox church chose and that has so thoroughly been discredited.


The real Jesus, a man, was a Universalist, --- the same way Gnostic Christians were, --- and any God worth following will be a Universalist.


Catholic translates to universal and that means Universalism yet they never practiced it. Equality of the sexes either. Women were chattel.


Rome would not let Christianity rid itself of the carrot and stick mentality, heaven and hell, of that day.


It was always us and them and that is why Christians killed us and burned our scriptures when Constantine bought the church.


Regards
DL

Is that really any different than say 3 scientists who examine the same set of experiments and reach 3 different conclusions. And then years later a 4th scientist comes a long with a new eye and realizes they were all wrong?

You are saying that science is self-correcting. I agree.


You seem to show it as less than a benefit while that is one of it more beneficial aspects.


No religion self-corrects. They just ignore draconian laws and continue to worship barbarian Gods.


Regards
DL

 

[cj44]

Tradition and because as in the old days, Gnostic Christians believe that we were the true church of that day as we were not literalists and did not tie ourselves to the four gospels the then Orthodox church chose and that has so thoroughly been discredited.


The real Jesus, a man, was a Universalist, --- the same way Gnostic Christians were, --- and any God worth following will be a Universalist.


Catholic translates to universal and that means Universalism yet they never practiced it. Equality of the sexes either. Women were chattel.


Rome would not let Christianity rid itself of the carrot and stick mentality, heaven and hell, of that day.


It was always us and them and that is why Christians killed us and burned our scriptures when Constantine bought the church.


Regards
DL




You are saying that science is self-correcting. I agree.


You seem to show it as less than a benefit while that is one of it more beneficial aspects.


No religion self-corrects. They just ignore draconian laws and continue to worship barbarian Gods.


Regards
DL

Frenchie, if you don't "tie" yourself to the 4 gospels, then how do you come to know Jesus? If you banish the book, then where is your source.

 

[DaSleeper]

Benny Hinn - God Laying Hands on People in Kansas (1) - YouTube


Benny Hinn - Fire Falling on Choir and entire Crowd - YouTube


Benny Hinn - Fire Falling on Young People - YouTube


BENNY HINN: Let The Bodies Hit The Floor - YouTube


Benny Hinn - Amazing Glory of God Falling on People (1) - YouTube

 

[Cliffy]

Frenchie, if you don't "tie" yourself to the 4 gospels, then how do you come to know Jesus? If you banish the book, then where is your source.

Do you know what the Gnostic Gospels are? They are the gospels of the other apostles and their followers. They advocated a personal journey to truth (Christ consciousness). They were burned at Constantin's orders to so his sanctioned version of Christianity would be the only one people could follow. They were discovered in Egypt in 1945 buried in the desert by a guy digging a well. They are the only copies of these ancient texts, kinda like the Dead Sea Scrolls only different. They are rejected by main stream Christianity because they show beyond a doubt that Christianity took a wrong turn around 317 AD.

 

[French Patriot]

Frenchie, if you don't "tie" yourself to the 4 gospels, then how do you come to know Jesus? If you banish the book, then where is your source.

http://forums.canadiancontent.net/spirituality-philosophy/120236-care-compare-jesus-you-know.html


There are many Jesus' and what I reject is the one Rome invented. Too much of a boot liking wimp for any man that one.
I prefer the Gnostic Christian and Jewish Jesus' much better.


Some find as many as seven but I have not really bothered looking for them. I see him as Joseph Campbell does. One of the Heroes of 1,000 Faces. As an esoteric ecumenist, That suits me better.


You do realize that more books were rejected for the bible than were accepted, right?


We can find as many Jesus' as you like. Jesus even said that at the end of days there would be many even using his name.


I think it is high time that the church just told the truth, that it is all myth, and wrote a new moral bible to replace what has become a immoral piece of junk literature because some began to read it literally.


Regards
DL

oe

A good collection.


I see that as outright theft by a flimflam man. Do you?


Regards
DL

Do you know what the Gnostic Gospels are? They are the gospels of the other apostles and their followers. They advocated a personal journey to truth (Christ consciousness). They were burned at Constantin's orders to so his sanctioned version of Christianity would be the only one people could follow. They were discovered in Egypt in 1945 buried in the desert by a guy digging a well. They are the only copies of these ancient texts, kinda like the Dead Sea Scrolls only different. They are rejected by main stream Christianity because they show beyond a doubt that Christianity took a wrong turn around 317 AD.

Yes. They tried to put a God into a book and he did not fit. God is a Universalist and they tried to make him just another tribal God of War and dropped his tolerance for all benign belief systems. A great lose that we have yet to recover from. For many years we lost a God and gained a God damned book.


John 6 ; 63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.


Luke 11:52 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.


Mark 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.


Regards
DL

 

[BaalsTears]

No power in Heaven or on Earth can exonerate Eve of sin. The sin cannot be baptized away. It is permanent. The sins of the mothers will be visited upon the daughters from generation to generation forever.

 

[French Patriot]

No power in Heaven or on Earth can exonerate Eve of sin. The sin cannot be baptized away. It is permanent. The sins of the mothers will be visited upon the daughters from generation to generation forever.

Yep. Here is the confirmation.


Deuteronomy 24:16 (ESV) “Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.


Ezekiel 18:20 (ESV) The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.


The declaration which says that God visits the sins of the fathers upon the children is contrary to every principle of moral justice. [Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason]


Hard to argue against the good Christian tradition of punishing children for what their parents do. That is the best justice for this parent let me tell you. My boys can take whatever I deserve.


I wonder when Canadian courts will wise up and follow biblical law.


Regards
DL

 

[MHz]

Hard to argue against the good Christian tradition of punishing children for what their parents do. That is the best justice for this parent let me tell you. My boys can take whatever I deserve.


I wonder when Canadian courts will wise up and follow biblical law.

Ex:20:5:
Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them,
nor serve them:
for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God,
visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

Our problems can be solved by following Iceland's lead.

 

[French Patriot]

Ex:20:5:
Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them,
nor serve them:
for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God,
visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

Our problems can be solved by following Iceland's lead.

[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

I have skies and snowshoes.


Regards
DL

 

[DaSleeper]

I have skies and snowshoes.


Regards
DL

Skies.....

Snowshoes.....

I prefer God's creatures......

Regards


AP

 

[EagleSmack]

Free











































































Will

 

[Cliffy]

Free Willy.

"Get naked and let your willy flap in the breeze", - Robbin Williams in The Fisher King