Who sinned first? Man, Satan or God?

Vibration reaches up to become light

I once had reason to doubt because of meanness at home but assurance taught that the truth can be seen.

 

Vile is the shape of a sword.
Doctrines are always the precepts of men.

 

Of course, I hope you realize that this is now where we cannot agree upon the constitution of Matter.

And a balanced budget by the accountants is plain unnatural.

Even or Odd?:sunny: Now Pascal's original Sin. INcidentally, I figured it out; how the "balanced" budget works with Nature (yeah sure).

 

I am not familiar with the measure of your hope.

No it is irrelevant. If you have 24 odds and ends and you remove twenty three,
which do you have left?

 

Yeah, I know, but who's watching?

 

Health is wealth.

 

Gnostic Christians do not read scriptures literally. Not even our own.
We were always aware of the fact that they were myths with messages.

We have also always been aware that some were written to be read, in a sense, opposite of what was written.

People have a hard time realizing that.

William Blake said of Christian and Gnostic readings ---.
Both read the Bible day and night,. But thou read'st black where I read white.


Give a listen to Karen Armstrong at about the 15.min. mark.
Note what she says about how they used to change word in scriptures just to juice up the dialog.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03132009/watch.html

Literalism is for losers.

Regards
DL

 

The basic premise is ridiculous and time wasting to me. Not to the rest of you, I suppose. Look up ineffable please.

 

I've still got to look up Sartre's critique of Kant's time intuition. Makes Pascal obsolete they tell me, but innocence is for doubt too little to want.

 

Having and being are the same.

 

The psychology of sin is not ineffable.

 

There is a body for everything. Resisting the temptation to accuse starves the accuser to the point that it hasn't the energy to even crave.

Self denial and accusation are the same.

 

I guess you're right, Dope. Goes with the territorial constructs.

 

Is that an analytic judgment or a synthetic one? Now that We, at least I, are on the plain of temporalization of the world from myself, I have to decide that it's being is not me, for if it were Me I would need to have necessity for something to Do here and now. The synthesis is in denial. Time's synthesis is in denial of the ego which is after-all my past and future. "Having and Being being self-identical" is a synthetic judgement, and the analysis of temporalization becomes Kantian. The computer just wishes me to spend money. I should be happy.

 

False dichotomy I think, it is both. You need do nothing to have all that you are. If we are unhappy it is because we haven't decided what we want in sorting out the good from the bad, be it good or be it bad? In time it would take forever to decide, or, you will seek me and die in your sin. Our being, your being, is all we see. We show up. If the eye be sound...

 

i.e. as you judge so you are judged for those who haven't understood this relationship.

 

Yep, more of your typical obfuscation and circular reasoning, ask your "spirit buddy" for something that actually means something next time.

 

The Holy Spirit yes, your spirit buddy no.

 

Very well, in viewing the lesson of the holy spirit please be specific comes to mind. You offer no relevant example that you know what you are talking about.

 

So you deny the holy spirit in you?