xjwsforChrist

CHAPPY SAID



Sometimes it went the opposite way. These children in some bands/tribes were seen as especially close to the spiritual and played the role of liaison, so to speak. They really didn't have to do all that much, as many may not have been capable, but that's how the community would view them. It was a social program of sorts. These children would not be able to hunt, gather or grow, so they received gifts for their spiritual intervention.

Twins too, at times, were seen as having special spiritual connections---by the same token they were seen elsewhere as being something spiritually malicious. But for those that thought they were more special, they also gave gifts to the families of the twins. Multiple births are much harder to provide for than single births in a small band, so these gifts helped the parents care for them. Yet is was viewed as gifts for the spiritual services.

When it came to homosexuality, or more specifically, gender differences, some groups had third gender (man acting female) and fourth gender (woman acting male) and they were often very important spiritually. We don't know a lot about how this was traditionally carried out. When Christian European colonists witnessed it, they often didn't understand it, or didn't have the language to express it. So they may have viewed it from an ethnocentric perspective, and simply dismissed it as savages being sinful. Or they didn't delve deeper into what it meant to the people, having already made judgment, so the full meaning passed as the missionaries and colonists moved in. Things weren't written from the native's standpoint. Writing came with Christianity of the day, so their thoughts were already altered when they took to writing.

Just seems to heavily depend on the culture as to whether homosexuality is wrong or a blessing. We know middle eastern culture has a heavy bias against homosexuality, so Paul's words were right in line with the opinions of the day---and even today.

Either way we look at it, I don't understand why some are so concerned about how others live their lives. Human nature, I suppose.

AGUEST SAID

I know you addressed dear Sab, dear Char (peace to you, both!), but I would like offer what I learned from my Lord on this... because I had to ask so as to know how to "deal" with this matter. Deal as in forgive? condemn? ignore? concern myself at all? The Law says... and Paul says... what do YOU say?

The FIRST thing he told me that I needed to understand is the difference between the flesh... and the spirit. I have shared over many years, how they are NOT one and same. Many disagree with this, of course, but he gave me the example of, say, amputation: you can remove my arms and legs and so alter my VESSEL, but I am still "me" inside. You can even transplant some of my organs, but I will still be "me." Because "me" is NOT my vessel. Dr. Stephen Hawking is a very good example of this: his vessel says he is one thing... while the person he is INSIDE that vessel says he is something else entirely.

So, now, I needed to think of the vessel SEPARATE from the spirit in it. Which is why most of us sin: the flesh and the spirit are at enmity and so we often DO... what we DON'T want to do. In such a case, the will of the flesh (vessel) wins over the will of the spirit (man inside the vessel).

UNLIKE, say, adultery, drunkeness, murder, theivery, covetousness... homosexuality is not simply a matter of spirit over flesh. It CAN be, but is not simply such. Rather, it is the result of the vessel inherited from Adham... the long garment of skin... which has sin and death IN it... sin that the "wearer" can't necessarily get away from. At least, not always easily - some are able to make the room for it, becoming, in essence, a kind of self-imposed eunuch, etc. Some are not, though, and simply live in "harmony" with the vessel they possess. This is a major conundrum for many transgendered individuals: they are one gender, while their vessel is another.

Homosexuality occurs where a vessel is attracted to a similar vessel, versus to an opposite vessel. It is NOT simply as with, say, some animals... where there is no "desire" other than to have a sexual encounter (although the "attraction" to the opposite sex often make this seem prevalent among homosexuals... but really, it's just as prevalent among heterosexuals, just with the opposite sex). Hence, it is NOT just about sex (although sex is a HUGE... mmmmmmm... "pull").

It IS biological because it is connected to the desires of the VESSEL, more than to the desires of the SPIRIT. And while one with perhaps a strong(er) spirit CAN... mmmmmm... control the ACTIONS of his/her vessel, he/she cannot control the DESIRES of that vessel... any more than most of us can control the "desire" of hunger in OUR vessels. We may be able to control how much we eat (although, not all of us and not always), but we can't control that our vessel MUST eat, indeed WILL (and those who say they can control it, say, in cases of anorexia are not really - such persons truly WANT to eat... but the vessel does not and wins out).

Yes, this is sometimes due to psychological influences; but psychological is more related to our biology than our spirituality. Spirituality is what can help us OVERCOME the biological, in many instances (for instances, controlling our drinking/eating habits, etc.). He said the greatest psychological influence for homosexuality, however... is narciscism. NOT in the negative sense that we often think of when we think of narcisism (i.e., someone who cannot think of ANYONE other than himself/herself, but in a sense of overwhelming "self-love" that causes the vessel to be attracted to what is MOST "like" one.

Can it be overcome? For some, yes. For some, no. Like anything else. SHOULD it? That's entirely up to the one experiencing it. Just as it's up to heterosexuals to marry or remain single... engage in sex or remain celibate. Up to some to drink alcohol or not to drink alcohol.

Because it is not the sins of the vessel that are of concern, but the sins of the spirit. And such are not related to the vessel, actually. They are related to the heart. Not as in eros... but as in philea/agape. Eros love is biological as well as psychological. Whereas, philiea and agape are purely spiritual. They can be accompanied by eros love, but don't have to be.

And so he taught me that since the VESSEL is of no use at ALL, it is not the "sins" of the vessel that are judged - it is the sins of the spirit. Indeed, that is what "life" that the Adversary is seeking: NOT the life of your FLESH... but the life of your SPIRIT. The flesh dies and returns to the dust - the Adversary knows this. What's he going to do with that? If, however, he can get you to curse God... then it's your SPIRIT that he had lead to the fire, yes? Remember my vision about that huge fire, that being dancing around it... and all those folks walking straight into it?? THAT'S his goal, dear one: your spirit, not your body.

So, sinning with one's BODY... isn't an issue (that was the OLD Law) - it's sinning with the SPIRIT that counts now (which is the NEW Law).

So, that, a man who may have been with and married to one woman his entire life... but, say, secretly covets his brother's wife in his heart... which is an uncleaness on the INSIDE of the "cup"... while judging others for THEIR uncleanness... will BE judged. However, man who has had many women, even many men... but does NOT judge... would be another story. Since ALL tend to judge... in one thing or another... one person or another... sooner or later... even that one is subject to being judged, then.

And so, that's where HIS blood, my Lord's, kicks in: to cover our sins, whatever they are... and whatever we may be as a result of them: adulterer, theif, murderer, drunkard, homosexual, idolator, one who has borne false witness against another... or coveted something that belongs to another...

His bottom line to me? Stop judging (which includes even worrying about what others do/don't do... are/aren't)... and just focus on keeping an eye on myself, so that I don't sin "against" God or others... and remember the value of his blood for when I do. To do this, I should be trying to make sure there is no "rafter" in MY eye... but the truth is that everyone HAS a rafter in his/her eye... in the eyes of the Father. We just don't remember when we got it. He does, though; it's written in His book.

I personally was reminded of this just this week... not worrying about another's choices... when I had to correct a situation with a relative that "worried" me. While there appeared to be good reason for it to worry me... I was reminded that so long as I am not asked to engage as well (I am not - LOL!)... and so long as I let the person know in what ways I couldn't be... I owed them nothing beyond that but love.

And love... does not keep account of the injury... or ever fail. So, I have to look PAST what "worries/bothers" me about the person/situation... and love will help me do that.

I hope this helps and, again, peace to you!

YOUR servant, sister, and fellow slave of Christ,

SA

CHARIKLO SAID

Sab, just to clarify, I didn't mean Paul in the Bible, I meant our friend Paul, here on the forum, in his post above.

SAB SAID

Shebly, that was a fascinating take I thank you for relating it. I believe what you said is in at least partial harmony with what I originally stated, but with a few clarifications.

The battle your Lord speaks of between spirit and flesh is the same as the battle to subdue one's ego. I would agree that for a heterosexual to abandon their natural sexuality would indicate a type of narcissism. To give into narcissism on this level would be letting one's ego win the battle which will always result in suffering both internal and external. Suffering is the measurement of sin.

However, with homosexuals there is no abandoning of their natural way. They actually look at heterosexuality with a similar distaste as hetero's do with homosexuality. Sexual desire is closely linked with visual identification and stimuli. All one needs to do to determine their sexuality is to look and see for themselves without someone whispering into their ears. If they are attracted to the same sex it doesn't mean they are a narcissist, it means they are homosexual. You cannot say that an 8 year old is so obsessed with themselves that they can only be attracted to the same gender. Gay people don't specifically seek out the same traits in their mates because they are looking for themselves in a partner. It not their own form they are attracted to, they are just are attracted to one gender which just so happens to be their own. They are just like everybody else out there looking for someone to love and to be loved in return.

Like I said it's the suffering of which brings any act into the sin category. If there is none present, as with modern homosexual relationships, there is no sin. Therefore it should be their quality of life and choices that determines their morality not their sexual orientation which includes genetic predispositions.



Since both Paul's agree with you, my point still stands.

-Sab
_________________
It only ends once everything else is just progress - Jacob, LOST

KASSAD SAID

Interesting thread guys! Thanks.

AGUEST SAID



A curious question, dear one (again, peace to you!), and no, I didn't admit that at all (AG thinks, "Huh? What? ME dodge something? LOLOL!"). I acknowledged that I didn't respond to question(s) and why... but I wasn't trying to dodge the question, per se. Nor did I purpose to change the course of the discussion. I just answered from a different direction for ME. Anyone else was free to stay on course. My apologies, though, if some didn't because of my comments.




That's inaccurate, dear one. Sin that we commit by our WILL is something that God does not allow, per se. It is temporarily allowed to exist in this world, however... else JAH would have eradicated it, as is His right to do. But that aside, by giving Adham/Eve the long garment of skin He did... that which had sin IN it... the MOST Holy One of Israel did allow sin. He did, and has, allowed it... for HIS purpose: that we might know His mercy.


Sorry, but this, too, is inaccurate. Because it suggests that the sins of the father DO come upon the son. Which is NOT true, at least not for those who belong to Christ. For those who BELONG to sin... yes. Yet, those who belong to Christ are the descendants of sinners... as well as sinners themselves. However, WE do NOT inherit the problems... or sins... of our ancestors, as that relates to the sins of the SPIRIT. The problems of the world, however, are not our problems - they are the world's. And we who belong to Christ only "suffer" them if we are PART of the world. If, however, we are seeking the kingdom... and IT'S righteousness... then we don't worry about what we are to eat, or put on... or where we are to lay our heads. Which is what the world considers problems.



Yes, it is the effect of Adham/Eve's actions; however, that action resulted in a body such as we have today... that has sin IN it... which body they received from the Father. Was it a punishment? No... it was and is merely a "holding" cup/vessel... until such time as God's mercy works out HIS will... which is to release us FROM such a body, the one with sin... and so death... IN it.


(Smile) No, dear one... he truly is not. I understand why you might SAY that, but I assure you... God's Word is ALIVE!



I am a christian, dear one, as are some others here... and such access is not a mystery to US. I can't understand, though, knowing what I do NOW... how it is you call yourself a Christian... but believe the One you follow (I mean, that IS what most who claim to be christians believe they are doing, yes?) is dead. How does one follow a dead person? Sure, one can following the previously recorded SAYINGS of a dead person... but that only makes one a disciple of the deceased. A christian, however, is one who has been chosen. Who "chose" you... if Christ is dead?



Dear Sab... that might be all that YOU have... and all some... many... others have... but that's not all there IS. Because some of us have holy spirit... which goes far, far, beyond what is written down. Indeed, it is the means by which some of what was written down WAS so written.



By mysterious force, do you mean holy spirit? If so, from whence you DO believe this mysterious force comes? A dead man? How can that be?



In ALL honesty, I don't understand this statement, dear one. What I DO understand, by what you say here... is that you don't understand Christ... or the Old Law. Per my Lord. He said because if you did, you would remember that that Law prohibited touching lepers, or women with flow of blood. Or corpses. Yet, the was something BETTER than the Law... something for which there IS no law... and that is love. What you are suggesting, however, is that he would have had a problem with a homosexual man but not an adulterous woman. Or with a homosexual man, but not an extortioner. Or with a homosexual man but not a leper. What you MISS... is that with regard to ALL of these he SURPASSED the Law... with love. Because (1) love COVERS a multitude of transgressions, AND (2) there is no law AGAINST love.

So, had a homosexual been brought to him, he would have treated such one in the same way as he did the woman caught in adultery... and the man on the pole next to him: he would have forgiven them and gave them reason to have peace, either by sending them on IN peace... or assuring them that they would be with HIM... in his kingdom. He would not have forgiven a woman CAUGHT in adultery... while condemning a man known to be a homosexual. Why? Because it would not have been loving, it would not have been just, and thus, it would not have been righteous.



I realize a lot of folks THINK the Torah says that, as so INTERPRET and TEACH that the Torah says that, but I don't think the Torah says that, dear one. Can you point me to where it does?


This, too, is inaccurate. There are those who are born eunuchs, as well as women who are barren.



To be honest with you, I'm not so sure about that. I mean, you COULD be right, but given what I've come to learn about mankind, I think the world would be surprised at the percentage(s)... if the religious stigma, prejudices, and sanctions did not exist. Unfortunately, one of the things the flesh DOES... is HIDE... what we are INSIDE. And so, it also hides our "desires."


Ummmmm... what? Sorry, I don't follow...



Okay, now I TRULY don't follow... because the primary caretakers for the children of dead parents SHOULD be family... regardless of whether they are gay or straight. In addition, that one is gay OR straight does not dicatate (1) one's desire to have/raise children, (2) one's ABILITY to have/raise children, or (3) that one will step and do so if a need arises. There are both gay and straight people who can and will care for orphans... and gay and straight people who don't/won't.



And so, you believe adultery means suffering? Or not honoring one's parents? Or forgetting the Sabbath? You believe everyone who covets or bears false witness suffers? On the other hand, you don't believe some, many... who are homosexual do NOT suffer? And I realize that you might think that perhaps they do because of the religious "pressures," but then that would suggest that NO atheist parent ever had a problem with a child's homosexuality. Sure, it can be a problem in a religious household, but I don't think we should assume it never is in a non-religious household (or vice versa, that it always is in every religious household).



Dear Sab... you are suggesting, then, that it is sinful when someone suffers... perhaps because of being in the wrong vessel entirely. I think, though, that you are considering only sin IN the flesh... such as sickness and aging... but not that of the SPIRIT. The Torah says adultery is sin, though, yes? Where is the suffering there? Or it is only adultery if the non-indulging party doesn't agree to it so that he/she is suffering?



Again, I don't understand what you're saying. I could say the same as to an adulterer. While YOU might not equate such a one with a criminal, the one he/she commits adultery AGAINST might. But perhaps this is your view because you "rank" sin. The MOST Holy One of Israel, JAH of Armies, however, does not. Sin... is sin. It's not that the wages of "this kind of" sin... but not "that kind of sin" is death, dear one.


While your response is accurate, dear one, I don't think it's a fair.



Not sure I understand this: are you saying dear Char will lean towards distaste because she cannot understand... or because she's heterosexual?


I agree; however, I am not sure why you think any here are so teaching. True, some here may not understand it, but that doesn't necessarily translate into teaching others negatively about it. And, as dear Chaps pointed out, it's not unacceptable everywhere, or even in every religion or culture (it was/is actually somewhat glorified in some cultures, among Native Americans early in this country... AND is not only fomented but young children are actually raised to BE homosexuals in some eastern cultures... oh, yes, from the time of being small children - and centuries ago, from the time of being babies... indeed, taught that women are SOLELY for the purpose of bearing children and it is with men that sex is most enjoyable, so...).

But even if one does have some misconception about it based on current or former religious beliefs/morality... to be in union with Christ one must let such judgments go. For ALL sinners... because we are ALL of us sinners. And all will BE judged... by the judgment THEY issue. Therefore, to those who belong to Christ... there is no sin... is there? I mean, really? Technically, perhaps... but not literally... right?


Which is are among a few things that show he didn't always follow the leading of Christ, the Holy Spirit. Because had he done so he (1) wouldn't have NEEDED to consult the scriptures (John 5:39, 40), but (2) would have heard on the matter directly from Christ himself (John 10:27), and so (3) wouldn't have judged as HE did, OR (4) tried to get others to do so, (5) to the grave detriment of a congregation that HIS teaching (not Christ's) almost completely divided, (6) which admonition he later had to rescind.



Au contrare, dear one: Paul was really smart, yes, sometimes too smart for his own good, though. And I cannot say that he was an epic peacemaker - several accounts indicate he was often the cause of great discord. Not that that was a bad thing, always.



I agree. Not sure, though, what your message here is, though... Perhaps it was merely an... mmmmmmmm... "test"... to see where WE all stand?

Peace to you, dear Sab... and I hope you don't take offense to my candor here.

YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,

SA

AGUEST SAID



You are quite welcome, dear Sab (again, peace to you!)! Please do clarify!



Perhaps, although I'm not so sure. I mean, I believe there are people who really have (very) little ego... who still undergo such battles. I'm not sure what you mean by "ego", though... so I could be wrong.



I don't think that's what I said, and I know that's not what I meant. Heterosexuals abandon their natural sexuality all the time. For instance, for philea/agape love. They THINK they have eros love... and for time engage in such, but then realize not so much. Happens with young people, particularly young women, all the time.



I'm going to have to leave you to your own thoughts and opinions here, dear one. Not what I hear from my Lord... and without his input, way too deep for my little bitty brain - LOLOLOL!



Mmmmmmm... how old are you, again? I think you need to speak with some older, perhaps even closeted homosexuals, dear one. I think you are overgeneralizing both, actually. Or perhaps you think all "bisexuals" are truly bisexual...


And if they are attracted to both?


No, you can't.



You know, dear Sab, I am not gay, so I can only share what was shared with me. But your comment above is interesting. May I ask you: what do heterosexuals look for when looking for a partner? And is it truly different from what a homosexual would look for? Please, take a minute and think about that before responding.




That's your understanding but not mine. Indeed, what suffering did Adham/Eve undergo... except to till the land, undergo birth pangs, and eventually die? But that's pretty much ALL of mankind, yes?


I ABSOLUTELY agree with this. But I would say the same as to EVERYONE. And, so, again, NO sin in ANYONE... at least from MY position of judging.

So, okay... there you go - we agree! Whew!

Peace - LOLOLOLOL!

Your servant and a slave of Christ,

SA

AGUEST SAID

Greetings and peace to you, dear Sab! I have thought more about your position and would like to ask your position on a couple/few things, if I may, in light of our discussion here:

Given the biological nature of sexual attraction (eros)... and science's progressive understanding of pedophilia in that light... how do you view pedophiles? Some are of the belief that it's okay, so long as the "sufferer" doesn't "do" anything "about" it (i.e., remains celibate). Do you think it's fair to ask these... who apparently are as they are due to biology... to refrain from activity... while not asking others whose biology gives them certain "tastes" to do so?

The same with, say, those who suffer from severe clinical depression, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, etc., which causes them to kill (i.e., serial and other killers who do so because of some biological anomaly).

Or, say, sexual addicts. What of the alcoholic?

My point is that all of these "suffer" from some biological condition that CAN lead to conduct that is harmful... but not necessarily. My point/question is:

If we can expect/say that these should simply refrain from the conduct that results from their condition (and, for heterosexuals, that could be refrain from adultery/fornication)... why would we not say the same as to homosexuals?

Wait... PLEASE don't get me wrong: I am NOT trying to single out homosexuals here. Rather, I think that is what you are doing - saying that it's okay for THEM to act "naturally," but not others. Again, MY position is that no one is really in a position to judge anyone else, as all sin/have sinned. And so, since I don't want MY sin to be "seen" or remembered, it is upon me to not see OTHERS' sin... or remember it. Hence, "no" sin.

Can you tell, me, please... how you reconcile these things, things such a pedophilia which is a biological kind of sexual attraction that some believe should be controlled, even suppressed... but not, say, homosexuality, which is also a kind of biological sexual attraction... than some believe should NOT be controlled/suppressed?

Peace to you!

YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,

SA

PSACRAMENTO SAID

Natural tendencies do NOT equal CORRECT or harmless tendencies.
Just because we have a natural or genetic disposition to be a certain way does NOT mean we SHOULD be that way.
Can doesn't = Should.
I agree with Shel, we are NOT to judge others.
What is between them and God is between Them and God.
However, I do believe that if we view something as wrong that we are entitled to express that view.

SAB SAID



I follow the Spirit of Christ which RESULTED from his death. If Christ DIDN'T die he would still be on earth as a king and I could ask him a question like I would anyone else. Yet, he chose to die because he is not king of this planet, he is King of Reality. A man, which he was when he came to earth, CANNOT hold the position of King of Reality, but rather only king of the earth/galaxy. He would be selling himself and all of reality short if he settled for a temporary human position of leadership. Instead, he chose to die at the hands of the Romans and become forever enthroned in heaven which gave him the authority to give out eternal life to whom he chose. I believe I am one of the people (I also admit this is impossible to know for sure, but I have faith). The way I communicate with Christ is the same way anyone would communicate with a dead person. It's important to note that under Christ's law there is only one dead person permissible to communicate with and that's Christ himself. All other communication with the dead is prohibited because they CANNOT have all the answers as Christ does. They are not King of Reality and their perspective however broad is wholly unnecessary.



The act of pedophilia is a sin because it always results in suffering. That act specifically meets the criteria of the Greek word "path'os" which means giving into lust which results in suffering. It means a depraved passion and homosexuality and bisexuality do not meet that criteria just as heterosexuality doesn't.

As a parallel example consider the hygienic problems of oral sex that are greatly mitigated by something as simple as proper dental hygiene. Without a clean mouth oral sex can be very dangerous and can spread disease.

The Jews were a very clean people and they prided themselves in that cleanliness. That cleanliness was deeply integrated into their religious culture right down to the genitalia. The Law was never meant to be based off of what people can "stomach" so to speak, but rather an observation of CAUSE and EFFECT. What is beneficial is godly and what is detrimental is sinful.

Unfortunately, the science of their time didn't account for everything and they were left to try to understand the complexities of hygiene by trial and error. Because of this ignorance sex had to be regulated because the lusts of the people can bring suffering upon themselves.

Yet, science changes all of this. We have floss, toothpaste, toothbrushes and a dental industry now. Logically these new factors should affect our outlook on acts such as oral sex which used to come with unavoidable health risks that are now effectively neutralized. The taboo was lifted and many didn't seem to notice (same argument for contraception). That's why I say that sin is about cause and effect, not a curse. We curse ourselves by willful ignorance.

I am a bi polar person who was incredibly traumatized as a child and in my adult life. Yet, I don't go around burning down villages and raping children because I think I somehow deserve it. That's psychotic. There is a difference between someone with a chemical imbalance and someone who is willing to justify killing another person and pillaging villages. You CANNOT blame the imbalance or else you are essentially letting the murderer get off scott free. You are relieving them from any responsibility by asserting that their morality is subjective to their experience. This is TRUE, but only to a point. There is subjective morality AND there is objective morality. The former is easy to understand the latter isn't.

For example apparently in Saudi Arabia there was a 5 year old girl who was raped and murdered by a cleric who did it because he thought she had lost her virginity. The man that did this knew what he was doing. He is sadistic and deserves 100,000x more pain and suffering he made his child endure. This is justice, something that this world hates. We are more interested in keeping the rapists alive and fed well in prisons so that the prison guards and secretaries have jobs. Instead of doing the right thing and killing the obvious sadistic killer, Saudi Arabia fines the cleric $200k which would have been $400k if the victim was male. There IS objective Right and Wrong. We SHOULD judge these people for the crimes they commit. There is no way I will ever equate Elton John and Ellen Degeneres with that vile cleric in Saudi Arabia.

The problem is that we are not using reason to define sin, we are using the wrong interpretations of Scripture to determine right from wrong. That is the real sin that is being committed and the victims are piling up more and more every day. We must measure sin by the suffering it causes, not ideologue.

There is nothing wrong with casting the first stone at a child rapist murderer. Just as long as you aren't tainted with the same sin. Just because we have temptation to do wrong doesn't equivocate us with the worst of society. Stop blaming the victims!!!!

-Sab
_________________
It only ends once everything else is just progress - Jacob, LOST

CHARIKLO SAID


No, Sab. The whole point is he died and rose again on the third day. That's it. He conquered death, and freed all and each of us from the shackles of death into everlasting life, if we choose to follow him.

JUSTMOM SAID

I follow the Spirit of Christ which RESULTED from his death.

Hello Sab....

Yes Sab and our Lord IS this spirit/holy and glorified and ALIVE as Hebrews 4:12 says " Gods word is ALIVE and exerts power and is sharper than any two-edged sword and pierces even to the dividing of soul (body) and spirit, and of joints and their marrow, and able to discern thoughts and intentions of the heart."

Love Justmom

SAB SAID



Christ's decision NOT to rule as a human leader is key for his story and purpose to make moral sense. Only Christ had the opportunity to decline what wasn't available for any other person. He could have chosen to rule forever ON EARTH which is why Satan tempted him. He could have chosen to end all suffering right then and there but do it in the name of Satan. Instead of that he rebuked Satan and freely chose to get killed in a brutal fashion while making what many would call a political statement. This was a controversial decision because it could be argued that he left us all to suffer and die needlessly. Some would say he threw us into the hands of Satan and use the subsequent events that followed his death as proof. He made the ultimate point that it's not THIS world that's worth saving, but a select group of people within it. The Holy Ones at the bottom of the pyramid schemes are the ones that deserve to rule, but we are held down under the thumb of modern society. It's the same today as it was back then, nothing has changed but the names of those in power. What Christ left behind was what is called the "Sign of Jonah" which like you said involved him dying for three days and then rising up again. When he raised himself up, he was a spirit not a human because his is a spiritual kingdom, NOT a physical one.


You are just caught up on my use of the word "death." Everyone who who dies has done so in flesh, but like every ending it's just a beginning. For the righteous it's the beginning of eternal life and happiness and for the evil it's the beginning of eternal judgement.

-Sab
_________________
It only ends once everything else is just progress - Jacob, LOST

JUSTMOM SAID

The way I communicate with Christ is the same way anyone would communicate with a dead person. It's important to note that under Christ's law there is only one dead person permissible to communicate with and that's Christ himself. All other communication with the dead is prohibited because they CANNOT have all the answers as Christ does.
[/quote]


Sab my apologies...this is why I was addressing that Christ is alive and not dead. He did die yes for parts of three days, but now lives. So I misunderstood you i think. It is permissible to communicate with Christ because he is not dead. He has risen from the world of the dead and conquered death. As to others that are dead, they have not risen yet but remain in death in the world of the dead and to communicate with them is using an avenue that our lord warns against.

Just a thought
Justmom

SAB SAID

Justmom we are in agreement. We differ on terminology only.

-Sab
_________________
It only ends once everything else is just progress - Jacob, LOST