+14-15
donateur
Geloof jij in god?
laatste aanpassing
Forumonderwerp · 750071
10 volgers · 379519x bekeken
Nee ik geloof in mezelf 
Je kan God idd abstract noemen en dan de link tussen hem en morele daden wegnemen, maar dan heb je twee problemen.
Het probleem is dat wij zelf onze bende in de gaten moeten houden.
Hij bemoeit zich er gewoon niet mee.
Alleen op de dag des oordeel.
laatste aanpassing
[7:14]
Hij zeide: "Geef mij uitstel tot aan de Dag waarop zij zullen worden opgewekt."
[7:15]
(God) zeide: "U is uitstel verleend."
Satan: Hey God, als je mij nou vrij laat, zal ik de meerderheid van de mensen meesleuren naar de hel."
God: "Okee prima"
Ik wil niet beweren dat ik bepaalde feiten beter dan je begrijpt omdat ik een conclussie durf te trekken, maar ik geloof dat jij meer de angst hebt de "echte" waarheid te willen kennen of toe te willen geven dat die doctrines die je aanhangt niet helemaal kloppen.
Bang voor straf ?!
Nee ik erken dat je geschriften op n bepaalde manier moet benaderen en dat er n grens is aan mijn persoonlijke inzicht
Ik waardeer en respecteer daarom de mensen van kennis heel erg
Dat wordt vaak gezien als iets negatiefs, maar ik zie t niet zo
Ik zet mn ego dan opzij en luister naar wat mensen die meer kennis erover bezitten dan ik te zeggen hebben
Tuurlijk is er altijd ruimte voor vrij denken/interpreteren, maar als je t doet, zorg dan dat je geen fouten maakt, das alles..
En het is raar dat je de teksten van de Koran wel begrijpt/goedkeurt en die van anderen zoals die van de Bijbel uitsluit/afkraakt.
Zie hier je quote
Nogmaals, dit is niet wat ik zelf roep, ik spreek geen oud Grieks en oud Hebreeuws, maar ik lees wat mensen te zeggen hebben die dat wel kunnen en in dit geval zijn dat vaak gewoon Christenen
Christelijke tekst-geleerden zeggen bijvoorbeeld dat de originele teksten (dus de Griekse of Hebreeuwse) van de 4 evangeliën in heel gebrekkige taal zijn opgeschreven
Dat betekent dat de schrijvers waarschijnlijk niet goed geleerd waren in de grammatica-regels van die taal
Dr staan veel taalkundige fouten in en dit is op zich al problematisch als je zegt dat de tekst van God komt
Zeker wanneer je dat dan gaat vertalen doen zich problemen voor; de ene Bijbel zegt iets anders dan de andere
Welke vertaling/interpretatie van t origineel is dan geldig of welke is de beste?
Ding met de Nederlandse Bijbel is dat dr weinig vertalingen zijn, in t Engels zijn ontzettend veel vertalingen, waardoor je ze kunt vergelijken.. ik vind dat wel belangrijk
En de Koran zeker niet ?!
Nee, de Qur'an niet
Het bevat GEEN ENKELE taalfout, nergens.. het is, zoals t zelf ook zegt, in puur/helder Arabisch
De Qur'an is de basis vd Arabische taal, als je wilt weten hoe je iets grammaticaal moet schrijven in t Arabisch, dan ga je naar de Qur'an, want de Qur'an is juist dé grote infobron voor t Arabisch
En als je de gebrabbel van het slecht Hebreeuws in de Bijbel begrijpt, omdat er veel taalfouten en taalkundige problemen in zitten dan zou mijn NLDse gebrabbel eigenlijk geen probleem moeten zijn.
Maar wel een oordeel vellen over de Bijbel en mij !
Ik zei niet dat je brabbelde, ik zei alleen dat ik je soms niet helemaal kan volgen
Maar dat is hoe jij je ding doet.. jij hebt dr n kunst van gemaakt om iets te vertellen door alleen te copy-plakken
wat ik wel apart vind en typisch voor jou (das niet negatief bedoeld) 
Dan kan ik dé Allah waarin jij in geloof niet begrijpen.
Die is toch AL zo machtig en waarom dan PAS een oordeel vellen op de dag des oordeel om te kunnen oordelen of iemand naar de hel of hemel kan gaan terwijl de persoon in leven mits het geen minderjarig kind is en die zich AL heeft bewezen op aarde.
We geloven dat God altijd al wist wat t einde zal zijn van elk mens
Lotsbestemming..
Maar vanuit onze beleefwereld maken wij zelfstandig beslissingen
Vrij wil..
Zo gaan goddelijke lotsbestemming en vrije wil samen op n manier die moeilijk te bevatten is, maar als je t eenmaal ziet dan is t logisch
Dus God beoordeeld onze daden op de Dag der Opstanding en zal ons straffen, vergeven of belonen hoe Hij wil en dat is gerechtvaardigd, omdat we onze eigen keuzes maken
Dit is absoluut geen tegenstelling, maar vereist wel diepe reflectie, wil je t zien
Trouwens, God heeft de mensen uit t niets in t bestaan gebracht, dus alles wat God besluit te doen met Zijn schepping is gerechtvaardigd
Zonder Hem zouden we zoiezo niet bestaan, zouden we niks zijn, dus alles ligt in Zijn 'handen'
OK jij wint, maar het is omdat je het zelf niet precies weet en je je erbij neerlegt (doctrine) dat reïncarnatie niet bestaat.
Ik heb goeie redenen waarom ik t uitsluit
Ik begon gewoon btje genoeg te krijgen van dit bepaald onderwerp, we hebben t er al vrij lang over nu..
Satan: Hey God, als je mij nou vrij laat, zal ik de meerderheid van de mensen meesleuren naar de hel."
God: "Okee prima"
Zucht..
Maybe laat ik woorden als lotsbestemming te luchtjes vallen, want als je geen goeie grip hebt op dit hele idee van dat God Alwetend is zorgt dit voor rare problemen zoals hier
Alsof t n gebeurtenis is voor God.. n dialoog dat opeens plaatsvind en God instemt met iets wat Hij niet wist ofzo
Alles is zoals Hij wil dat t is
Maar wat is God dan? Heeft 't een soort pure kern dat met slechts één woord te benoemen is?
Ik vind de tekst heel goed.. alleen dat specifieke punt roept de vraag op: maar wat is God dan in z'n aller zuiverste kern? Wát heeft geen tegengestelde of gelijkwaardige? Welke absolute vuistregel verschaft 't voor ons bestaan?
dat is t punt, we kunnen de ware natuur van God niet kennenZoals Abu Bakr(ra) zei: "Your incomprehensibility of God IS you comprehension of God"
Iets dat geen gelijke heeft en zelfs geen tegenstelde kun je nooit écht kennen
We hebben echter 99 namen voor God in de Qur'an gekregen en dat zijn die eigenschappen en door die eigenschappen kunnen we dingen concluderen over God
Verder kunnen we dit weer onderwerpen aan rationeel denken en er de logica in vinden
laatste aanpassing
jij hebt dr n kunst van gemaakt om iets te vertellen door alleen te copy-plakken
Alsof jij dat niet doet.
Copy-plakken is enkel een gemakkelijke optie om iets aan te tonen waar je het vandaan hebt gehaald en om een persoon eraan te herinneren wat hij/zij gezegd heeft.
Er wordt hier op PF weleens dingen gezegd en ook hier op het topic dat achteraf wordt weggehaald.
Dag bewijs.
Ik heb goeie redenen waarom ik t uitsluit
Dat is idd. je recht.
laatste aanpassing
want als je geen goeie grip hebt op dit hele idee van dat God Alwetend is zorgt dit voor rare problemen zoals hier
Mja... ik heb me heus wel verdiept in begrippen als alwetendheid en lotsbestemming, en zover ik kan zien verdwijnen die rare problemen daarmee niet... feit blijft dat God wist wat de consequenties waren van het vrijuit laten gaan van Satan, dus hij wist ook dat daardoor meer mensen de verdoemenis in worden meegesleept. Voor mij genoeg reden om het christelijke idee naast me neer te leggen.
T I K K E waarom nou jij jezelf T I K K E, en niet D I K K E of K I K K E ?
Wie is T I K K E ?
Je voormalig innerlijke zelf...
haha was denk ik mn evil twin jongere broertje
als hij liet zien dat hij er was in de slechte tijden misschien wel
Satan: Hey God, als je mij nou vrij laat, zal ik de meerderheid van de mensen meesleuren naar de hel."
God: "Okee prima"
Ik vind dit ook zo'n raar idee en anders dan het in de Bijbel staat geformuleerd.
En er zijn idd. bepaalde feiten die je soms erbij neer moet leggen en dan denken van
Alles is zoals Hij wil dat t is
Maar is dat danwel zo eerlijk ?!
Ik geloof daardoor dat met de komst van Jesus met Zijn verlossing; God op Zijn antwoord terug is gekomen (respijt/foutje ???) en zo ons het eeuwige leven weer teruggeeft.
En met dien verstande dat de mens ZELF wat eraan doet t.w. de vrije wil.
En dan kan ik zeggen: Alles is zoals Hij wil dat t is.
laatste aanpassing
God is heel erg sexy!
Ik vind dit ook zo'n raar idee en anders dan het in de Bijbel staat geformuleerd.
Idee is hetzelfde
Want in de Bijbel staat God t ook toe dat de slang hen verleid
Nogmaals, God weet alles, dus liet Hij t toe dat ze vd appel aten
Dat is t verschil met ons.. wij zeggen daarover dat t gewoon de bedoeling was dat ze dat deden
Ze moesten dat wel doen, omdát t gebeurde
Wat volgde was t menselijk bestaan op aarde, de grote test
Dit alles gebeurde omdat God t zo wilde
Vandaar heb ik bezwaar tegen de Bijbelse versie, waarin niet alleen Adam en Hawwa bestraft worden, maar meteen ook elk mens dat voort zou komen uit hen
Punt is dat t bedoeling was dat we zo zouden leven zoals nu, God vergeeft Adam en zn vrouw dan ook in de Qur'an
Er is geen verlosser (Jezus) nodig, omdat wij dit idee van erfzonde niet kennen
Vragen of t eerlijk is wat God doet is btje vreemd vind ik
Hij kan niet onrechtvaardig zijn, want hij heeft geen rechten en plichten zoals wij ze kennen
Hij is volledig vrij te doen wat Hij wil
Wij zouden niet bestaan als Hij t niet zo had gewild, dus wie zijn wij om God onrechtvaardig of oneerlijk te noemen?
Zoals in de Qur'an staat.. de mensen zullen ondervraagd worden over wat zij deden en God kan door niemand ondervraagd worden over wat Hij doet
Beste zondaren,
Stel je MOET je bekeren tot óf het Christendom óf de islam, welke zou je dan kiezeng?
Stel je MOET je bekeren tot óf het Christendom óf de islam, welke zou je dan kiezeng?
Christendom heeft meer rare regeltjes. Bovendien heb je 967 verschillende aftakkingen die allemaal zeggen dat zij de enigen zijn die in de hemel komen
Islam barst al helemaal van de rare regeltjes joh
Veel verschillende vertakkingen zijn er zeker in het Christendom... weet niet hoe veel Islam er daar van heeft. Maar ja, 't Christendom is ook wel bijna 2x zo groot.
Ik denk dat ik zelf toch voor 't Christendom ga als ik MOET kiezen.
Ik zal voor Islam gaan denk ik...theoretisch toch n stukje steviger en sterker dan t christendom (bijbel)...
zijn beide verder wel lachwekkend maarja...
zijn beide verder wel lachwekkend maarja...
Whoooopo, is 't Christendom zó hard gekelderd in deze samenleving dat jullie zelfs de Islam beter achten?
Oef, what a lost society here
Oef, what a lost society here
Nee hoor.. ieder z'n antwoord...
Maar toch vind ik 't soms ergens wel jammer dat 't Christendom zo'n slechte naam heeft gekregen en zo als iets stoms wordt gezien vandaag de dag, terwijl 't toch wel de roots van onze samenleving is. Het is de basis van heel veel dingen (ja, ook van een heeeele hoop bekrompenheid en zo) die onze normen en waarden vormen, en ooit bindend was. Ik denk om eerlijk te zijn dat de Islam wel een beetje eenzelfde lot tegemoet gaat als de wereld nog wat langer gaat bestaan dan tot 2012(), en ook zal gaan verwateren, en vele mensen zich er ervan af zullen gaan keren als de volkeren op Islamitische grond meer vrijheid en een meer open moraal gaan krijgen, en ook zo'n proces van vallende heilige huisjes ondergaan. Dan zal dat ook minder worden denk ik.
Nu heeft de Islam dat nog niet zo, en is de stroming nog wat sterker in z'n macht over de mensen. Op den duur zal dat denk ik ook flink gaan kelderen...
Maar toch vind ik 't soms ergens wel jammer dat 't Christendom zo'n slechte naam heeft gekregen en zo als iets stoms wordt gezien vandaag de dag, terwijl 't toch wel de roots van onze samenleving is. Het is de basis van heel veel dingen (ja, ook van een heeeele hoop bekrompenheid en zo) die onze normen en waarden vormen, en ooit bindend was. Ik denk om eerlijk te zijn dat de Islam wel een beetje eenzelfde lot tegemoet gaat als de wereld nog wat langer gaat bestaan dan tot 2012(
), en ook zal gaan verwateren, en vele mensen zich er ervan af zullen gaan keren als de volkeren op Islamitische grond meer vrijheid en een meer open moraal gaan krijgen, en ook zo'n proces van vallende heilige huisjes ondergaan. Dan zal dat ook minder worden denk ik. Nu heeft de Islam dat nog niet zo, en is de stroming nog wat sterker in z'n macht over de mensen. Op den duur zal dat denk ik ook flink gaan kelderen...
*dubbel*
laatste aanpassing
Kleuterjuf van Xeno tegen Moeder Xeno: Wij weten ook wat er met hem aan de hand is, hij wil niet met de andere kinderen spelen en hij blijft steeds maar dezelfde dingen zeggen, en wordt steeds boos en gooit met blokken
hm nou is het minder leuk
Ik denk dat ik zelf toch voor 't Christendom ga als ik MOET kiezen.
MOET ?! Sta je onder schot dan ?!
Maar als ik een keuze zou doen, dan kies ik voor de Christendom, daar dat er bepaalde feiten/omschrijvingen naar mijn mening veel logischer en denkbaar zijn, geloof ik.
niet gelovig, vind het egoïstisch om 1 geloof van de zovele te kiezen dus ik blijf lekker neutraal!
The Meaning of the Last Judgment
The Final Judgment is one of the greatest threat concepts in man's perception. This is only because he does not understand it. Judgment is not an essential attribute of God. Man brought judgment into being only because of the Separation. God Himself is still the God of mercy. After the Separation, however, there WAS a place for justice in the schema, because it was one of the many learning devices which had to be built into the overall plan. Just as the Separation occurred over many millions of years, the Last Judgment will extend over a similarly long period, and perhaps even longer. Its length depends, however, on the effectiveness of the present speed-up. We have frequently noted that the miracle is a device for shortening but not abolishing time. If a sufficient number of people become truly miracle-minded quickly, the shortening process can be almost immeasurable. But it is essential that these individuals free themselves from fear sooner than would ordinarily be the case, because they MUST emerge from basic conflict if they are to bring peace to the minds of others.
The Last Judgment is generally thought of as a procedure undertaken by God. Actually, it will be undertaken solely by man, with My help. It is a Final Healing, rather than a meting out of punishment, however much man may think punishment is deserved. Punishment as a concept is in total opposition to Right-Mindedness. The aim of the Final Judgment is to RESTORE Right-Mindedness TO man.
The Final Judgment might be called a process of Right-evaluation. It simply means that finally all men must come to understand what is worthy and what is not. After this, their ability to choose can be reasonably directed. Unless this distinction has been made, the vacillations between free and imprisoned will cannot but continue. The first step toward freedom, then, MUST entail a sorting out of the false from the true. This is a process of division only in the constructive sense, and reflects the true meaning of the Apocalypse. Man will ultimately look upon his own creations, and will to preserve only what is good, just as God Himself once looked upon what he had created, and knew that it WAS good. At this point, the Will will begin to look with love on its creations, because of their great worthiness. The mind will inevitably disown its miscreations, and having withdrawn belief from them, they will no longer exist.
The term Last Judgment is frightening, not only because it has been falsely projected onto God, but also because of the association of "Last" with death. This is an outstanding example of upside-down perception. Actually, if it is examined objectively, it is quite apparent that it is really the doorway to life. No man who lives in fear is really alive. His own final judgment cannot be directed toward himself, because he is not his own creation. He can apply it meaningfully, and at any time, to everything he has ever created, and retain in his real memory only what is good. This is what his own Right-Mindedness cannot but dictate. The purpose of time is solely to "give him time" to achieve this judgment. It is his own perfect judgment of his own creation. When everything that he retains is lovable, there is no reason for any fear to remain in him. This IS his part in the Atonement.
The Final Judgment is one of the greatest threat concepts in man's perception. This is only because he does not understand it. Judgment is not an essential attribute of God. Man brought judgment into being only because of the Separation. God Himself is still the God of mercy. After the Separation, however, there WAS a place for justice in the schema, because it was one of the many learning devices which had to be built into the overall plan. Just as the Separation occurred over many millions of years, the Last Judgment will extend over a similarly long period, and perhaps even longer. Its length depends, however, on the effectiveness of the present speed-up. We have frequently noted that the miracle is a device for shortening but not abolishing time. If a sufficient number of people become truly miracle-minded quickly, the shortening process can be almost immeasurable. But it is essential that these individuals free themselves from fear sooner than would ordinarily be the case, because they MUST emerge from basic conflict if they are to bring peace to the minds of others.
The Last Judgment is generally thought of as a procedure undertaken by God. Actually, it will be undertaken solely by man, with My help. It is a Final Healing, rather than a meting out of punishment, however much man may think punishment is deserved. Punishment as a concept is in total opposition to Right-Mindedness. The aim of the Final Judgment is to RESTORE Right-Mindedness TO man.
The Final Judgment might be called a process of Right-evaluation. It simply means that finally all men must come to understand what is worthy and what is not. After this, their ability to choose can be reasonably directed. Unless this distinction has been made, the vacillations between free and imprisoned will cannot but continue. The first step toward freedom, then, MUST entail a sorting out of the false from the true. This is a process of division only in the constructive sense, and reflects the true meaning of the Apocalypse. Man will ultimately look upon his own creations, and will to preserve only what is good, just as God Himself once looked upon what he had created, and knew that it WAS good. At this point, the Will will begin to look with love on its creations, because of their great worthiness. The mind will inevitably disown its miscreations, and having withdrawn belief from them, they will no longer exist.
The term Last Judgment is frightening, not only because it has been falsely projected onto God, but also because of the association of "Last" with death. This is an outstanding example of upside-down perception. Actually, if it is examined objectively, it is quite apparent that it is really the doorway to life. No man who lives in fear is really alive. His own final judgment cannot be directed toward himself, because he is not his own creation. He can apply it meaningfully, and at any time, to everything he has ever created, and retain in his real memory only what is good. This is what his own Right-Mindedness cannot but dictate. The purpose of time is solely to "give him time" to achieve this judgment. It is his own perfect judgment of his own creation. When everything that he retains is lovable, there is no reason for any fear to remain in him. This IS his part in the Atonement.
laatste aanpassing
Wat klinkt 't goed in het Engels 
. Man will ultimately look upon his own creations, and will to preserve only what is good, just as God Himself once looked upon what he had created, and knew that it WAS good. At this point, the Will will begin to look with love on its creations, because of their great worthiness.
waarom die '' , wat bedoel je ermee?
' , wat bedoel je ermee? Hoppa, nog een lange tekst (die toch door niemand gelezen gaat worden ) erachteraan:
Atonement without Sacrifice
(Tuesday, November 22, 1965)
There is one more point which must be perfectly clear before any residual fear which may still be associated with miracles becomes entirely groundless. The Crucifixion did NOT establish the Atonement. The Resurrection did. This is a point which many very sincere Christians have misunderstood. Nobody who was free of the scarcity-fallacy could POSSIBLY have made this mistake.
If the Crucifixion is seen from an upside down point of view, it certainly does appear AS IF God permitted, and even encouraged, one of his Sons to suffer BECAUSE he was good. Many very devoted ministers preach this every day. This particularly unfortunate interpretation, which actually arose out of the combined misprojection of a large number of my own would-be followers, has led many people to be bitterly afraid of God.
This particularly anti-religious concept happens to enter into many religions, and this is neither by chance nor coincidence.
The real Christian would have to pause and ask "how could this be?" Is it likely that God Himself would be capable of the kind of thinking which His own Words have clearly stated is unworthy of man?
The best defense, as always, is NOT to attack another's position, but rather to protect the truth. It is not necessary to consider anything acceptable, if you have to turn a whole frame of reference around in order to justify it. This procedure is painful in its minor applications, and genuinely tragic on a mass basis. Persecution is a frequent result, justifying the terrible misperception that God Himself persecuted His own Son on behalf of salvation. The very words are meaningless.
It has always been particularly difficult to overcome this because, although the error itself is no harder to overcome than any other error, men were unwilling to give it up because of its prominent escape value. In milder forms, a parent says "This hurts me more than it hurts you," and feels exonerated in beating a child. Can you believe that the Father REALLY thinks this way?
It is so essential that all such thinking be dispelled that we must be VERY sure that NOTHING of this kind remains in your mind. I was NOT punished because YOU were bad. The wholly benign lesson which the Atonement teaches is wholly lost if it is tainted with this kind of distortion in ANY form.
"Vengeance is Mine sayeth the Lord" is strictly a karmic viewpoint. It is a real misperception of truth, by which man assigns his own evil past to God. The "evil conscience" from the past has nothing to do with God. He did not create it, and He does not maintain it. God does NOT believe in karmic retribution at all. His Divine mind does not create that way. HE does not hold the evil deeds of a man even against HIMSELF. Is it likely, then, that He would hold against any man the evil that ANOTHER did?
Be very sure that you recognize how impossible this assumption really is, and how entirely it arises from misprojection. This kind of error is responsible for a host of related fallacies, including the misbelief that God rejected man and forced him out of the Garden of Eden, or that I am misdirecting you. I have made every effort to use words which are almost impossible to distort, but man is very inventive when it comes to twisting symbols around.
God Himself is not symbolic; He is Fact. The Atonement, too, is totally without symbolism. It is perfectly clear, because it exists in light. Only man's attempts to shroud it in darkness have made it inaccessible to the unwilling, and ambiguous to the partly willing. The Atonement itself radiates nothing but truth. It therefore epitomizes harmlessness, and sheds ONLY blessing. It could not do this if it arose from anything other than perfect innocence! Innocence is wisdom, because it is unaware of evil, which does not exist. It is, however, PERFECTLY aware of EVERYTHING, that is true.
The Resurrection demonstrated that NOTHING can destroy truth. Good can withstand ANY form of evil, because light abolishes ALL forms of darkness. The Atonement is thus the perfect lesson. It is the final demonstration that all of the other lessons which I taught are true.
Man is released from ALL errors if he believes in this. The deductive approach to teaching accepts the generalization which is applicable to ALL single instances, rather than building up the generalization after analyzing numerous single instances separately. If you can accept the ONE GENERALIZATION NOW, there will be no need to learn from many smaller lessons.
NOTHING can prevail against a Son of God who commends his Spirit into the hands of His Father. By doing this, the mind awakens from its sleep, and the Soul remembers its Creator. All sense of Separation disappears, and level confusion vanishes. The Son of God IS part of the holy Trinity, but the Trinity Itself is One. There is no confusion within ITS levels, because they are of One Mind and One Will. This Single Purpose creates perfect integration, and establishes the (reign of the ) Peace of God.
But this vision can be perceived only by the truly innocent. Because their hearts are pure, they defend true perception, instead of defending themselves against it. Understanding the lesson of the Atonement, they are without the will to attack, and therefore they see truly. This is what the Bible means when it says "(and) when He shall appear (or be perceived) we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him AS HE IS."
Sacrifice is a notion totally unknown to God. It arises solely from fear of the Records. This is particularly unfortunate, because frightened people are apt to be vicious. Sacrificing others in any way is a clear-cut violation of God's own injunction that man should be merciful even as His Father in heaven is merciful.
It has been harder for many Christians to realize that this commandment (or assignment) also applies to themselves. Good teachers never terrorize their students. To terrorize is to attack, and this results in rejection of what the teacher offers. This results in learning failures.
I have been correctly referred to in the Bible as "The Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world." Those who represent the lamp as blood-stained (an all too widespread conceptual error) do NOT understand the meaning of the symbol.
Correctly understood, the symbol is a very simple parable, or teaching device, which merely depicts my innocence. The lion and the lamb lying down together refers to the fact that strength and innocence are NOT in conflict, but naturally live in peace. "Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God" is another way of saying the same thing. Only the innocent CAN see God.
There has been some controversy (in human terms) as to whether seeing is an attribute of the eyes, or an expression of the integrative powers of the brain. Correctly understood, the issue revolves around the question of whether the body or the mind can see (or understand). This is not really open to question at all.
The body is not capable of understanding. Only the mind KNOWS anything. A pure mind knows the truth, and this IS its strength. It cannot attack the body, because it knows EXACTLY what the body is. This is what "a sane mind in a sane body" really means.
A sane mind is NOT out for blood. It does not confuse destruction with innocence, because it associates innocence with strength, NOT with weakness. Innocence is incapable of sacrificing anything, because the innocent mind has everything and strives only to protect its Wholeness. This is why it cannot misproject. It can only honor man, because honor is the natural greeting of the truly loved to others who are like them.
I have been correctly referred to as "the lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world," but those who represent the lamb as blood-stained do not understand the meaning of the symbol. Correctly understood, it is a very simple symbol that speaks of my innocence. The lion and the lamb lying down together symbolize that strength and innocence are not in conflict, but naturally live in peace. "Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God" is another way of saying the same thing. A pure mind knows the truth and this is its strength. It does not confuse destruction with innocence because it associates innocence with strength, not with weakness.
Innocence is incapable of sacrificing anything, because the innocent mind has everything and strives only to protect its wholeness. It cannot project. It can only honor other minds, because honor is the natural greeting of the truly loved to others who are like them. The lamb "taketh away the sins of the world" in the sense that the state of innocence, or grace, is one in which the meaning of the Atonement is perfectly apparent. The Atonement is entirely unambiguous. It is perfectly clear because it exists in light. Only the attempts to shroud it in darkness have made it inaccessible to those who do not choose to see.
The Atonement itself radiates nothing but truth. It therefore epitomizes harmlessness and sheds only blessing. It could not do this if it arose from anything but perfect innocence. Innocence is wisdom because it is unaware of evil, and evil does not exist. It is, however, perfectly aware of everything that is true. The resurrection demonstrated that nothing can destroy truth. Good can withstand any form of evil, as light abolishes forms of darkness. The Atonement is therefore the perfect lesson. It is the final demonstration that all the other lessons I taught are true. If you can accept this one generalization now, there will be no need to learn from many smaller lessons. You are released from all errors if you believe this.
The innocence of God is the true state of the mind of His Son. In this state your mind knows God, for God is not symbolic; He is Fact. Knowing His Son as he is, you realize that the Atonement, not sacrifice, is the only appropriate gift for God's altar, where nothing except perfection belongs. The understanding of the innocent is truth. That is why their altars are truly radiant.
) erachteraan:Atonement without Sacrifice
(Tuesday, November 22, 1965)
There is one more point which must be perfectly clear before any residual fear which may still be associated with miracles becomes entirely groundless. The Crucifixion did NOT establish the Atonement. The Resurrection did. This is a point which many very sincere Christians have misunderstood. Nobody who was free of the scarcity-fallacy could POSSIBLY have made this mistake.
If the Crucifixion is seen from an upside down point of view, it certainly does appear AS IF God permitted, and even encouraged, one of his Sons to suffer BECAUSE he was good. Many very devoted ministers preach this every day. This particularly unfortunate interpretation, which actually arose out of the combined misprojection of a large number of my own would-be followers, has led many people to be bitterly afraid of God.
This particularly anti-religious concept happens to enter into many religions, and this is neither by chance nor coincidence.
The real Christian would have to pause and ask "how could this be?" Is it likely that God Himself would be capable of the kind of thinking which His own Words have clearly stated is unworthy of man?
The best defense, as always, is NOT to attack another's position, but rather to protect the truth. It is not necessary to consider anything acceptable, if you have to turn a whole frame of reference around in order to justify it. This procedure is painful in its minor applications, and genuinely tragic on a mass basis. Persecution is a frequent result, justifying the terrible misperception that God Himself persecuted His own Son on behalf of salvation. The very words are meaningless.
It has always been particularly difficult to overcome this because, although the error itself is no harder to overcome than any other error, men were unwilling to give it up because of its prominent escape value. In milder forms, a parent says "This hurts me more than it hurts you," and feels exonerated in beating a child. Can you believe that the Father REALLY thinks this way?
It is so essential that all such thinking be dispelled that we must be VERY sure that NOTHING of this kind remains in your mind. I was NOT punished because YOU were bad. The wholly benign lesson which the Atonement teaches is wholly lost if it is tainted with this kind of distortion in ANY form.
"Vengeance is Mine sayeth the Lord" is strictly a karmic viewpoint. It is a real misperception of truth, by which man assigns his own evil past to God. The "evil conscience" from the past has nothing to do with God. He did not create it, and He does not maintain it. God does NOT believe in karmic retribution at all. His Divine mind does not create that way. HE does not hold the evil deeds of a man even against HIMSELF. Is it likely, then, that He would hold against any man the evil that ANOTHER did?
Be very sure that you recognize how impossible this assumption really is, and how entirely it arises from misprojection. This kind of error is responsible for a host of related fallacies, including the misbelief that God rejected man and forced him out of the Garden of Eden, or that I am misdirecting you. I have made every effort to use words which are almost impossible to distort, but man is very inventive when it comes to twisting symbols around.
God Himself is not symbolic; He is Fact. The Atonement, too, is totally without symbolism. It is perfectly clear, because it exists in light. Only man's attempts to shroud it in darkness have made it inaccessible to the unwilling, and ambiguous to the partly willing. The Atonement itself radiates nothing but truth. It therefore epitomizes harmlessness, and sheds ONLY blessing. It could not do this if it arose from anything other than perfect innocence! Innocence is wisdom, because it is unaware of evil, which does not exist. It is, however, PERFECTLY aware of EVERYTHING, that is true.
The Resurrection demonstrated that NOTHING can destroy truth. Good can withstand ANY form of evil, because light abolishes ALL forms of darkness. The Atonement is thus the perfect lesson. It is the final demonstration that all of the other lessons which I taught are true.
Man is released from ALL errors if he believes in this. The deductive approach to teaching accepts the generalization which is applicable to ALL single instances, rather than building up the generalization after analyzing numerous single instances separately. If you can accept the ONE GENERALIZATION NOW, there will be no need to learn from many smaller lessons.
NOTHING can prevail against a Son of God who commends his Spirit into the hands of His Father. By doing this, the mind awakens from its sleep, and the Soul remembers its Creator. All sense of Separation disappears, and level confusion vanishes. The Son of God IS part of the holy Trinity, but the Trinity Itself is One. There is no confusion within ITS levels, because they are of One Mind and One Will. This Single Purpose creates perfect integration, and establishes the (reign of the ) Peace of God.
But this vision can be perceived only by the truly innocent. Because their hearts are pure, they defend true perception, instead of defending themselves against it. Understanding the lesson of the Atonement, they are without the will to attack, and therefore they see truly. This is what the Bible means when it says "(and) when He shall appear (or be perceived) we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him AS HE IS."
Sacrifice is a notion totally unknown to God. It arises solely from fear of the Records. This is particularly unfortunate, because frightened people are apt to be vicious. Sacrificing others in any way is a clear-cut violation of God's own injunction that man should be merciful even as His Father in heaven is merciful.
It has been harder for many Christians to realize that this commandment (or assignment) also applies to themselves. Good teachers never terrorize their students. To terrorize is to attack, and this results in rejection of what the teacher offers. This results in learning failures.
I have been correctly referred to in the Bible as "The Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world." Those who represent the lamp as blood-stained (an all too widespread conceptual error) do NOT understand the meaning of the symbol.
Correctly understood, the symbol is a very simple parable, or teaching device, which merely depicts my innocence. The lion and the lamb lying down together refers to the fact that strength and innocence are NOT in conflict, but naturally live in peace. "Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God" is another way of saying the same thing. Only the innocent CAN see God.
There has been some controversy (in human terms) as to whether seeing is an attribute of the eyes, or an expression of the integrative powers of the brain. Correctly understood, the issue revolves around the question of whether the body or the mind can see (or understand). This is not really open to question at all.
The body is not capable of understanding. Only the mind KNOWS anything. A pure mind knows the truth, and this IS its strength. It cannot attack the body, because it knows EXACTLY what the body is. This is what "a sane mind in a sane body" really means.
A sane mind is NOT out for blood. It does not confuse destruction with innocence, because it associates innocence with strength, NOT with weakness. Innocence is incapable of sacrificing anything, because the innocent mind has everything and strives only to protect its Wholeness. This is why it cannot misproject. It can only honor man, because honor is the natural greeting of the truly loved to others who are like them.
I have been correctly referred to as "the lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world," but those who represent the lamb as blood-stained do not understand the meaning of the symbol. Correctly understood, it is a very simple symbol that speaks of my innocence. The lion and the lamb lying down together symbolize that strength and innocence are not in conflict, but naturally live in peace. "Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God" is another way of saying the same thing. A pure mind knows the truth and this is its strength. It does not confuse destruction with innocence because it associates innocence with strength, not with weakness.
Innocence is incapable of sacrificing anything, because the innocent mind has everything and strives only to protect its wholeness. It cannot project. It can only honor other minds, because honor is the natural greeting of the truly loved to others who are like them. The lamb "taketh away the sins of the world" in the sense that the state of innocence, or grace, is one in which the meaning of the Atonement is perfectly apparent. The Atonement is entirely unambiguous. It is perfectly clear because it exists in light. Only the attempts to shroud it in darkness have made it inaccessible to those who do not choose to see.
The Atonement itself radiates nothing but truth. It therefore epitomizes harmlessness and sheds only blessing. It could not do this if it arose from anything but perfect innocence. Innocence is wisdom because it is unaware of evil, and evil does not exist. It is, however, perfectly aware of everything that is true. The resurrection demonstrated that nothing can destroy truth. Good can withstand any form of evil, as light abolishes forms of darkness. The Atonement is therefore the perfect lesson. It is the final demonstration that all the other lessons I taught are true. If you can accept this one generalization now, there will be no need to learn from many smaller lessons. You are released from all errors if you believe this.
The innocence of God is the true state of the mind of His Son. In this state your mind knows God, for God is not symbolic; He is Fact. Knowing His Son as he is, you realize that the Atonement, not sacrifice, is the only appropriate gift for God's altar, where nothing except perfection belongs. The understanding of the innocent is truth. That is why their altars are truly radiant.
laatste aanpassing
die woorden in hoofdletters zijn een beetje kut (of niet..), dat is normaal gesproken schuingedrukt, maar dat ga ik niet allemaal lopen aanpassen nu, geen zin in
Ja
Hoppa, nog een lange tekst (die toch door niemand gelezen gaat worden ) erachteraan:
Ikke lees
Ehm.. eerste indruk.. ik vind t btje vaag, hoewel de schrijver juist beweert zorgvuldig zn woorden te kiezen blijft t n vage tekst
Mag ik vragen wie dit schreef (allebei de teksten)?
Want de schrijver schrijft aan zichzelf n hele hoge positie toe met deze teksten..
Door dingen te beweren over de wereld die we niet kunnen zien; de Dag der Opstanding, over God zelf en over de betekenis van Christelijke doctrines
Het lijkt bijna alsof de schrijver n profeet is, alsof hij/zij iets weet wat wij niet wisten
Dus ik wil weleens weten wie dit schrijft
Tis duidelijk dat de schrijver zwaar leunt op t Christendom, hoogstwaarschijnlijk heeft ie n Christelijke achtergrond en komt ie dus uit t Westen
Sommige dingen ben ik t mee eens, anderen niet
De eerste tekst die je plaatste lijkt zelfs n aantal Islamitische begrippen te incorpereren
Ik neem ook afstand van t idee dat de Dag der Opstanding geen vrees op moet roepen, dat staat lijnrecht tegenover mijn eigen geloof
De Qur'an maakt t meer dan duidelijk dat die Dag ontzettend moeilijk zal zijn voor veel mensen
En de Qur'an heeft sterke bewijzen voor zn goddelijke origine
Dus is t het woord van iemand waarvan je kunt aantonen dat hij niet uit zichzelf sprak, tegen t woord van iemand die ik niet ken en twijfels bij heb, betreffende de waarheid van wat hij/zij zegt
Ehm..
Bijvoorbeeld dat de Dag der Opstanding héél lang zou duren, das Islamitisch
De schrijver zegt over die Dag dit: "This.. then, must entail a SORTING OUT of the false from the true." in de Qur'an: yawm ul Fasl - the Day of Sorting Out
Als je dat hoofdstuk trouwens bekijkt krijg je n heel ander idee over de Dag der Opstanding
Tis n heel sterke Surah, met krachtige taal (in t Arabisch), ik zal m ff posten
Elke keer als gezegd wordt: "Woe that Day to the deniers!" gaat t over de Dag der Opstanding
Trouwens, als je t zo ff snel leest zul je veel niet echt begrijpen en zelfs als je t langzaam zou lezen zou je niet echt weten wat er staat
Maybe is t wel n keer handig om wat dieper in te gaan op wat er gezegd wordt en hoe, en hoe iets in de Qur'an benadert wordt
Dit is n korte uitleg op n aantal van die dingen uit bovengenoemde Surah, raad t aan als je denkt dat de Qur'an daar maar wat vage dingen opnoemt
Moet je dit filmpje ff beginnen bij 34 minuten en 32 seconden
Pay attention!
Maybe is t wel n keer handig om wat dieper in te gaan op wat er gezegd wordt en hoe, en hoe iets in de Qur'an benadert wordt
Dit is n korte uitleg op n aantal van die dingen uit bovengenoemde Surah, raad t aan als je denkt dat de Qur'an daar maar wat vage dingen opnoemt
Moet je dit filmpje ff beginnen bij 34 minuten en 32 seconden
Pay attention!
![[img width=300 height=244 cacheid=0001dfac00045a57bb75a61f1a02bf5ca8]http://www.infsq.co.uk/images/2051.jpg[/img]](/images/cache/0001dfac00045a57bb75a61f1a02bf5ca8 "Bron: http://www.infsq.co.uk/images/2051.jpg")
Mag ik vragen wie dit schreef (allebei de teksten)?
Jesus Christ superstar lallala
Je moet het in feite lezen vanuit het oogpunt dat dit een channeling is met Jezus.
Daar geloof jij natuurlijk geen barst van. Maar dat is nou eenmaal zo (dat je 't zo dient te lezen)
Ik geloof overigens wél dat het daadwerkelijk gechanneld is.
Maar ik moet ff weg.. geen tijd nu.
Hahaha Terra