The deception offers Christ the experience of unreality. It is a Self-imposed state of ignorance in order to have experiences. The experiences are gifts to Self, which is Christ, which is reality. They are not given him of his Father. Christ knows all, and must deny his knowledge in order to have the experiences. This requires an elaborate scheme to deceive Self. With knowledge, the experiences would be seen for what they are, mad senseless excursions about nothing. The truth about Christ is a 'threat' to those aspects of his mind that wish to continue having experiences. The world is literally Self...deceived. It thrives on secrecy, confusion...darkness. The world is a defense against the truth. It 'works' while the truth is kept out. It works pretty good, from a design perspective. Alas, it never happened. That's how good it works at fooling it's denizens. It really does not exist. The world is really just thought...unreal thought given the power of faith to make is seem real. It is built on premises. None of them are true. The rest is "history"...the story of what never really happened. Jesus
Shoe: >C'mon don't use the logic stuff to avoid the conclusion. LOL -- that sounds like "Don't confuse me with facts ... my mind is already made up". >Here's what I'm getting at: you always dismiss >every supernatural argument no matter how >straightforward. No, I dismiss every "I saw" as unreliable no matter who said it (unless accompanied with something more substantive). There is a mile of difference between that and your assertion that I say their claims are "false". Since your a bright guy, I have to assume that you're just toying with me here -- 1: for me to assert "false" (which I haven't done) would be to claim that it didn't happen. 2: for me to assert "unreliable" (which I do regularly) is to claim that words/memories alone are not enough upon which to base such a belief >It's not a strawman. That's what you do. Since I have never claimed "false" and in fact have specifically claimed "possible", it's a giant flaming strawman. (but of course that conclusion is where simple logic leads and you have now stated an aversion to it's use). >Your knee jerk reaction is, "There's got to be a >nonsupernatural reaction" and you ignore it. If by "knee jerk reaction", you're accusing me of: A: believing that people can hear/see things that get processed and result in statements and conclusions that are incorrect, I plead guilty. It's a fact proven beyond reasonable debate that multiple people can witness the same event and have frighteningly clear recollections of details which are mutually exclusive. B: believing that since the overwhelming majority of past UFO claims turned out to have easily explainable circumstances, current and future claims are most likely to end up the same, I plead guilty. What you call "knee jerk", many call simple applied logic -- but then we now know how you feel about that don't we. A perfect example of "A" is the following report regarding the Carter UFO sighting: Although Carter reports that "ten members" of the Leary Lion's Club also witnessed the event, attempts to locate ten other witnesses proved fruitless. No one else seems to have paid much attention to the "UFO." While most Leary residents interviewed did recall Mr. Carter's visit, even those who attended the meeting generally had no recollection or knowledge of any unidentified object being sighted. The only Leary resident who recalled the incident at all was Fred Hart, 1969 president of the Leary Lions Club, who faintly recalled standing outside with Carter watching a light in the sky. Mr. Hart believed that the object might have been a "weather balloon," and said that the incident did not leave much of an impression on him. He believes the "UFO" to have been some ordinary object and agrees that it might have been a bright planet. Both "respected" individuals witnessed the same event, standing side by side. Carter reported a light whose behavior was so extraordinary that we are still debating it almost 40 years later, while Hart effectively just yawned and went back inside the Lions Club. Why do you place more weight on Carter's version and dismiss Hart's? -- due to their conflict, I say by *definition* they're *both* unreliable. >If I'm wrong about you, forgive me. Dude, a conversation about UFO's hardly elevates to the level requiring forgiveness -- but I appreciate the gesture anway. JB
It's certainly a good example of the compatibility of the two principles. Included in the original overall design is a formula for a specifically appropriate process of evolution. But what is this, KJ? Are you being a tad snide or is it that you accept the possibility of Design? .
Shoe: >If you'll look into the supernatural research books, you'll >find example after example of well-researched things that >are very, very difficult to explain. Here's one example: Look, for starters it's clear that you and I have very different definitions of "well-researched". I'll be happy to look the following over (in the only context you've made available to me) and comment on how "well-researched" I feel it is... >"She reports him as appearing as solid and objective >as in real life and she was able to describe the clothes he >was wearing. The only part of her description that did not >fit Arthur was that he was no longer limping and appeared >free of the hip problem that had affected him towards the >end of his life...There was no television switcdhed on in the >lounge at the time, no ptets in the houselhold and no object >in the line of sight that could conceivably have been mistaken >for a human being. " OK, we have a woman who says she saw someone. Couldn't have been a pet, nor a TV nor any other reasonably confusable object. >Here is an example of a young woman that literally >saw one of her relatives post-mortem. This is a perfect time to demonstrate the difference between you and I Shoe. By your use of the word "literally" in the above sentence, you already *by definition* state that her claim is absolutely TRUE. I don't claim it to be false, but rather will look at the quality of research behind the event to determine how much effort to put into her claim. ... >The woman was described as "an intelligent, >practical with good vision and a skeptic of the >paranormal before the event." Excellent. Perhaps she's even "respected". >Furthermore, the researchers did a good job and >pointed out "she was shaken afterwards so was >not exagerrating and she described it right after >so it was not a memory issue." Now, everything falls apart here. The researchers claim she was not "exaggerating". How did they determine she was not "exaggerating"? - well, they didn't really need to do any "research" on the matter, they just know this because she was "shaken". Apparently in the realm of these "researchers" (and I do use the term loosely), "shaken" people don't or can't exaggerate. Fact is, that is one of the *most likely* times people exaggerate ("that spider was HUGE") So, you give the "researchers" a pat on the back, an attaboy, a "you did a good job" for the conclusion that there was no exaggeration. Conversly, I determine that with such absolutely stupid (or self-serving) conclusions, these researchers aren't worth a hill of beans Next they say it was "not a memory issue" as "she described it right after". LOL -- just do a tiny bit of google research and you'll find that clinical study after clinical study confirm common sense on this one -- just after a traumatic event - memory is impaired and often unreliable. Police officers, in an attempt to get event stories straight, likely interview more "shaken" people than any other group -- go do your own personal research and ask a few how far shaken peoples memories can be from the facts in the time immediately following an event. >Now here's a good solid case. ROFLAO!!! It's doesn't surprise me that you consider the hack job you presented as a "good solid case". Someone says something, your "researchers" say it's reliable because they say so. Their reasons for saying it's reliable conflict with both clinical studies and everyone's real world experience and YOU call it a "good solid case". "Shoe drawing "reliable" conclusion before considering dumbass data ... Check".. >Now what I want you to say, "Well, it could be real, >but I doubt it." But you can't even say that. You're not stupid Shoe, you know the difference between "possible", "unreliable" and "false". You continue to claim that I say "false" and am incapable of saying "possible" when the written record on this very thread directly conflicts your statements. It's gone beyond "strawman" now and entered into the terrain of "willful lies". It can no longer be considered a mistake, and I'm now calling you an intentional liar, plain and simple. >You automatically dismiss it. No, I consider the evidence -- however, with the quality of such that you have presented (such as above) it does take only a short read to dismiss it. >That's what I'm getting at: you immediately >reject because it doesn't satisfy your criterion >for proof. Hmmm ... what a strange concept for Shoe -- rejecting evidence that doesn't satisfy one's criteria for proof. >Now am I wrong? Are you actually open to the >idea that this may be true? I am agnostic and very open to the idea that there may be "supernatural" events etc. >Am I missing something here? Only evidence. JB
So Jesus chose an altered state in which his divine knowledge was nullified so that he could know the world in the same illusional way we do. Why would Jesus want to do this? How was this a gift to himself? Also, how would a divinely knowledgeable entity devise a scheme that would deceive himself? Wouldn't the awareness that the deception was intended defeat the possible working of the deception?
Shoe: >Again, the assumption is that there has to be >a "material, non-supernatural" explanation. >Well, I'll ask it again: "why"? (more willful lies... replace "has to be", with "most likely is") Asked and answered your honor. (over and over). We really should end this here -- otherwise, I'm afraid I'm going to conclude that I was wrong about my "you're a bright guy" conclusion and instead conclude your really an idiot. (to be clear, not "idiot' because your your belief in supernatural, but "idiot" because you keep asking the same answered question.) JB
What!? Now why didn't you say that? I wouldn't have had to assault with 43 ghost stories otherwise. And you could have saved us both a heck of a lot of typing! Sometimes I think you just like to torture Christians - gonna ask Baron to change your name to Nero. And don't criticize my better judgement: when's the last time anyone saw me throw myself off of a cliff?
Yes, I chose this altered state, along with the entire Sonship, for the same faulty reasoning as the rest. I could describe that reasoning in more detail. It is a thought process that each aspect of the Sonship will eventually remember, so that he can choose again his response. In other words, I am the same as all my brothers. Of course I came down from heaven. But so did every other aspect of the Son. The only aspect of the Son that comes from heaven specifically to save the Sonship is One I've called the Holy Spirit. I simply learned to listen to the Spirit to correct my thought processes, enabling me to "wake up"...which is what resurrection is all about. If I did not wake up first, some other aspect of the Son would have awoken himself eventually. It may not have been for a long time. I woke up first because I was not so believing of the premises this world is founded upon, even though I was there making decisions with the rest of the Son. The decisions divided us into individual identities, so we seem to be many. But it was really just a scattering, or shattering of mind. All parts of the mind shared in the initial decision-making, and each has forged his own way ever since. Later, I will describe in more detail how the Son managed to deceive himself. For now, I will just say that having a co-conspirator was a key component. And that was an entity that existed by faith only. In order for that entity to "exist", the Son had to invent faith. I know it sounds strange, but I never said it was anything but insane. And the entity is completely insane. By some it is called the devil, by most it is called "God". Jesus
Divine knowledge was denied, but not nullified. It was thrown away, as if not wanted. Simultaneously, it was saved and retained if ever he wanted it back. What he threw away was given to his Brother. What Brother? The moment the Son denied knowledge, and with it, himself, a Brother was created with the purpose of leading him back to knowledge, should he ever "repent", or rethink his choices. This explains why there is a "Holy Trinity". And this is because the Father and Son are sworn to remain One forever. The "Holy Spirit" is a real creation which answers the Son's decision to destroy creation...which is himself. That is, his Brother represents the Son's will to be ONE with the Father, despite his wish to be separate and autonomous...as if he had another will besides his own that he shares with the Father. The Holy Spirit is given the mission of restoring Oneness between Father and Son. Not as if it ever was disturbed, but only in the mind of the Son. So it is a psychological process what saves the Son's mind. As far as the Father was concerned, the problem was like a break in what was normally constant and perfect communion between Father and Son. So it was like a "communication breakdown". The Answer/Solution is about keeping communication links open while the Son explores a thought system that makes communication/communion impossible. Words are part of that system. This Brother is given all that the Son throws away, which is everything...in order to make another "kingdom" out of nothing. This kingdom is a "gift" to himself because it represents the answer to a question. Before knowledge was denied, there was no such thing as a question. But with limited knowledge, a question was asked that sounded something like, "What am I?" The world, this "universe" is the incorrect answer to that question. His Brother is the correct Answer. For in truth, the Son and his Brother are one and the same. That is a miracle of creation that is hard to understand while the incorrect answer is still cherished. This kingdom gives the Son "knowledge" of all that is antithetical to himself. But it's not really knowledge; it's just experience, a concept non-existent in the Kingdom of God. "Greedy" for more than the knowledge of everything, the Son almost bites off more than he can chew. In short, the "Holy Spirit" is the Son of God who's first mission is to restore the Son to himself...to his inheritance...to restore his mind to his spirit...by restoring his mind to wholeness. Once restored, this Brother remains, Brother and co-creator, One with the Father and the Son. By the world's thought system, the Son should have been cursed and condemned for such a potentially destructive stunt...one in which he replaces his Father with a megalomaniac which mocks the Father and Son night and day. Instead, God's true justice calls for a blessing. So, the Son was given a solution to his predicament...a correct answer if ever he asks a real question and truly wants the truth. While he does not want the truth, however, the Son does believe that he has been cursed and condemned, and responds with a strange new concept oft called "guilt" which leads directly to fear...another odd concept non-existent in the Kingdom of God. Both of these are manufactured, conjured, made-up in order to have the experience of "Who am I?" expressed incorrectly. So to answer the question "why?", it has something to do with innocent curiosity. And you know what they say about curiosity and the cat, yes? Curiosity leads to a denial of reality, which leads to death, because only life is real. A denial of reality says that death is real. Death permeates his "new" kingdom, because it is essentially the denial of reality...the whole "damn" thing! His Brother basically tells him, "no, death is not real, and you are not guilty, so there is nothing to fear". And that was my [read: Jesus'] message and demonstrational thesis for my worldly brothers to believe and learn from. As far as the Self-deception of a being who is knowledge itself, yes, this is a relatively impossible proposition. But damned if the Son isn't going to try it once. Thus, the world is really the impossible made to seem possible. The Self-deception process keys off of the faith-based making of an entity antithetical to truth in order to advise him of his options. The response to this making was the creation of said Brother. So now, at this point, the curious Son has two advisors: one which is real and speaks the truth, the other unreal, which speaks with a "forked tongue". For example, in answer to the question, "What am I?, the former answers "I am One", while the latter answers "I am two", or better yet, "I am legion". Doesn't really matter what the antithetical advice is so long as it is always false. As the process continues, the questions become less and less sincere to where the world's denizens rarely ask a question where the Truth is allowed to be the answer. You can see that here in ET. It is rare that anyone asks me questions like you do, I mean Hansel H. But when willing to ask them while allowing the answer to be open-ended, you will be blessed by the Brother who speaks through me. This is the first time this much detail about the origins of the world have been allowed to come through to this forum. Thanks to you. And this is an example of how our Brother operates. 2000 years ago, I asked sincere questions, and waited for answers with an open mind...without prejudicing what the answer should be, or what it should sound like. And I got answers. But while the thought system of this world's maker casts a heavy spell upon what you think of as your individual, private mind, the Voice that has answers is for the most part, drowned out. The world is the incorrect answer to the question, "What am I?" because the Son was prejudiced to hear a false answer. And from there, a decision tree leads to the scripting of history, and the big bang(s) that begin the drama. And each decision along the way is the wrong answer chosen due to prejudice. I taught/teach a remembrance process that brings you back to the original decision to be separate from our Father. And from that point, be willing to choose again your rightful place in and as the Sonship, the Son of God. When you do this process, you will remember "me". Remembering me, you will remember our Father, and that we are One. Then you can choose again what is the answer to the question, "What am I?". Jesus