First Love
- Thread starter Motar
- Start date
There are some who do not respond to love. Sometimes the greatest expressions of love go unnoticed in favor of doing your own thing. At any rate I probably disagree with this particular verse but if it gives you comfort then that's cool.
Correction: " This Chapter"
There's a word you forgot. Love is life, life is love. In the old stuff His love is and means life. How could you forget your first love ,eh?
I answered the question, I want the prize. Cash wasn't it? Next time the collection plate goes arround, it's mine!
You love life to the fullest and you regain it by following ancient programes developed and perfected long ages ago by natural philosophy. If you need an explanation of "fullest" I'd be happy to google it for you.
You love life to the fullest and you regain it by following ancient programes developed and perfected long ages ago by natural philosophy. If you need an explanation of "fullest" I'd be happy to google it for you.
In my experience, DB, love is other-centered living.
"This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters." (1 John 3:16 NIV)
Other-centered living is "laying down our lives for our brothers and sisters".
You defy the wisdom of the ages with your new age ideas with some misinformed plan to make the long perfected better. Every living organisms first love is life itself, this is simple not any more debatable than the fact that rocks have no rectums. The spark of life in you is God and permeates the universe you only imagine that this might have a center.
I spent over an hour in composing a reply to your above post. Somewhere in the middle of that allowed hour I was interrupted by my grandson and now the system administrator god has the matter in his hands and will make a dispensation of the fate of that composition at sometime or other in the future.
The 'introduction has two parts, a beginning and a conclusion. There is also a vast difference in what happens.They will be introduced at some dark time, unprepared.
Re:16:15:
Behold,
I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth,
and keepeth his garments,
lest he walk naked,
and they see his shame.
Re:16:16:
And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon.
Re:7:9-12:
After this I beheld,
and,
lo,
a great multitude,
which no man could number, of all nations,
and kindreds,
and people,
and tongues,
stood before the throne,
and before the Lamb,
clothed with white robes,
and palms in their hands;
And cried with a loud voice,
saying,
Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne,
and unto the Lamb.
And all the angels stood round about the throne,
and about the elders and the four beasts,
and fell before the throne on their faces,
and worshipped God,
Saying,
Amen:
Blessing,
and glory,
and wisdom,
and thanksgiving,
and honour,
and power,
and might,
be unto our God for ever and ever.
Amen.
There are quite a few versions of the English Bible for one. Having the quote is more accurate that me giving you my version without you also having the references I use to support my view. It saves all the ones that have read it, like you, from having to use your version of what yo remember when you read it (some time ago)
If I was to ask if Daniel:8 predicts the fall of the RCC what would you say to support that view or dispute it.
Last but not least often my reply is an answer to a question, one that Scripture has an answer for already. If the question is there but not the answer then how familiar is the person with what is written inside the book?
Part of the reply has to do with how the ones that lost their first love find it again (or those that never had that relationship start one up where love is based on gifts received. If part of our love for family and friends is based on that also then is it reasonable to assume when God gives you many more gifts then he will also become the one you love more. (that does not diminish the love you already have for others, they just don't occupy the first position.
If I was to ask if Daniel:8 predicts the fall of the RCC what would you say to support that view or dispute it.
Last but not least often my reply is an answer to a question, one that Scripture has an answer for already. If the question is there but not the answer then how familiar is the person with what is written inside the book?
Part of the reply has to do with how the ones that lost their first love find it again (or those that never had that relationship start one up where love is based on gifts received. If part of our love for family and friends is based on that also then is it reasonable to assume when God gives you many more gifts then he will also become the one you love more. (that does not diminish the love you already have for others, they just don't occupy the first position.
My opinion, which like anyone else's, is subjective and prone to error. I try to put anything I read historically in a cultural and circumstantial context. Who is the passage talking to, referring to, and in what time and place. I personally am not looking to decipher any so called cryptic passage. Try to keep it as simple as I can relative to common sense. You see things as mysterious and wish to show yourself a interpreter of the symbolic secrecy. So no, I don't really listen much to the sages of our day. No need for you to school me or anyone else because in all reality. none of us know anything at all in regard to the spiritual. We only "think we know".
"I personally am not looking to decipher any so called cryptic passage. "
Good because once you start trying to improve what God made available the chance for getting it wrong is something you should ask Adam and Eve about. It's a big step to admit the book might be correct on it's own and at a level that has us being as 'little children who are hard of understanding'.
If you accepted that Ge:1 is based on the old earth doctrine and that means creation days are based on powers of 10 then the odds are what you understand from the other passages more or less falls into line.
The Bible has about 24 references to the term 'day of the lord'. If you gave your explanation of what that means and then we both went over the actual passages would either of our 'summations' contain less information than the original words. If we have to leave somethings out what is in place to make sure we leave out the least important part. 3 people reading and talking about the same passage is going to end up with something more reasonable that what any one of the three could come up with on their own.
"You see things as mysterious and wish to show yourself a interpreter of the symbolic secrecy."
You have that backwards, I promote that the Bible clears up enough visions that symbolism means nothing as the book is based on a literal meaning. Da:2, Da:7 and Re:17 have visions and explanations, if they are still confusing after you read them (a few times if necessary) you might be reading the wrong book.
The few that do promote symbolism always use only a few terms out of any passage as having some meaning and all the other words have no meaning at all. If that doesn't throw up some red flags you won't get through that 'error in thinking'.
Good because once you start trying to improve what God made available the chance for getting it wrong is something you should ask Adam and Eve about. It's a big step to admit the book might be correct on it's own and at a level that has us being as 'little children who are hard of understanding'.
If you accepted that Ge:1 is based on the old earth doctrine and that means creation days are based on powers of 10 then the odds are what you understand from the other passages more or less falls into line.
The Bible has about 24 references to the term 'day of the lord'. If you gave your explanation of what that means and then we both went over the actual passages would either of our 'summations' contain less information than the original words. If we have to leave somethings out what is in place to make sure we leave out the least important part. 3 people reading and talking about the same passage is going to end up with something more reasonable that what any one of the three could come up with on their own.
"You see things as mysterious and wish to show yourself a interpreter of the symbolic secrecy."
You have that backwards, I promote that the Bible clears up enough visions that symbolism means nothing as the book is based on a literal meaning. Da:2, Da:7 and Re:17 have visions and explanations, if they are still confusing after you read them (a few times if necessary) you might be reading the wrong book.
The few that do promote symbolism always use only a few terms out of any passage as having some meaning and all the other words have no meaning at all. If that doesn't throw up some red flags you won't get through that 'error in thinking'.
Last edited:
A baby is conceived and born in Love, filled with and is Love personified. The entire Universe and everything in it has Love as the basic building block. It is impossible to not be in Love. We are made of it. What some people call being out of Love/being without god, is simply the stupid notion that we are somehow separate from god/Universe/Creator. There is no separation. We are all One with creation: god is in us and we within it, we are god and god is us.
To put it another way is that the basic building block of all of creation is energy (see quantum physics). That energy is the same whether it is in an atom or a galaxy. There is only one energy that permeates all there is, and that energy is Love/god/Creator. We are conscious energy (spirit), a microcosm of the whole, that chooses to take on physical form in order to learn, or more correctly, unlearn the lie that separates us from our own divinity, our Unity/Oneness with the All That Is, what some people choose to refer to as god.
Sorry Htz and Motar, the bible and all the books of the Abrahamic religions are the source of the lie, the source of the Lie of separation.