Eternal truths

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Regret
Given a system of beliefs, are there any truths (facts that are generally accepted as such) that hold over from this existence to whatever eternal existence you believe in?

I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) and we believe that everything we experience in this existence is symbolic of something eternal. We also believe that God will not give us command, or place us under some law, that he himself will not follow himself. Given this perspective, we tend to view natural laws and religious laws as having an eternally based type.

Examples:

Matter can neither be destroyed or created, only altered in form. We believe that there is a substance, referred to as the light of truth, that was not created and cannot be created or destroyed. This substance is the base component of everything in existence. Thus, the Law of Conservation of Matter is an eternal truth from a Mormon perspective.

We believe that man is progressing from a primitive state to a more complex state. Intelligence organized by God from the light of truth into spirits, spirits placed into a physical frame, following the final judgement mentioned in the Bible we move to another state, and so on. A concept we term eternal progression. This concept has a type in much of the concept of evolution, and has been compared to evolution a few times that I am aware of by LDS authorities.

Does your religion, or perhaps just your personal beliefs, have any concepts that can be looked at and understood in a similar manner?

lord xyz
As an atheist, I like to examine what is true and what makes no sense. I sorta inspect if you will.

In fact, I see the whole, "for every action there is an equal and oposite reaction" as religious because there is nothing to explain why there's a reaction. There's evidence for a reaction or rather, the possibilty of there being a reaction, but no explanation as to why.

Fatima
Originally posted by Regret





What do you mean by " he himself will not follow himself " ?

Regret
Originally posted by Fatima
What do you mean by " he himself will not follow himself " ? Any law/command God gives man God will abide by. God will not violate laws or commands he gives man. God will live by the laws and commands he requires man to abide.

Atlantis001
If you are trying to understand why the universe is restricted to laws as it is if after all there is a God being who trancends them. Then, I beleive that the laws that restricts our physical universe are a consequence of a limited understanding of the universe, so thera are not really any restrictions out there.


Perhaps there are some eternal laws after all and some real restrictions, but sometimes it is like if restrictions are consequences of the belief system you believe but since we are free to choose what we believe, we can be free of those restrictions. Well, just my opinion anyway...

Fatima
Originally posted by Regret
Any law/command God gives man God will abide by. God will not violate laws or commands he gives man. God will live by the laws and commands he requires man to abide.




But in this case you make God equal with human ,I mean god has the right to order the human and make laws , not necessary god must live by its laws, and yea how god violate its own laws and commands?

sorry for these questions but its alittle confusing... wink

debbiejo
Originally posted by Atlantis001
If you are trying to understand why the universe is restricted to laws as it is if after all there is a God being who trancends them. Then, I beleive that the laws that restricts our physical universe are a consequence of a limited understanding of the universe, so thera are not really any restrictions out there.


Perhaps there are some eternal laws after all and some real restrictions, but sometimes it is like if restrictions are consequences of the belief system you believe but since we are free to choose what we believe, we can be free of those restrictions. Well, just my opinion anyway... Even including paradoxes......... smart

Mindship
It could be argued that Holism is an infinite and eternal truth. Certainly, in our observable universe, there is an apparent tendency for parts to organize into wholes, those wholes being parts which organize into still larger/more complex wholes, and so on.

Of course, our observable universe may well be an infinitesimal part of an infinitely larger, unobservable cosmos, and because it is unobservable, it's hard to say what's going on in the rest of existence.

Then again, from what we can see: as more complex wholes emerge, we see that increasing levels of consciousness also emerge.

Now if we go with the concepts that...
"God" is infinite and eternal,
"God," therefore, encompasses All of the cosmos, seen and unseen,
and that "God" is the Absolute Pinnacle of Consciousness,
...one could say that an infinite and eternal propensity of existence--whether understood materially or spiritually--is a holistic drive toward higher levels of consciousness, until "God" fully awakens.

Once awakened, He looks around, thinks, "Wow, that was cool," then does it all over again.

usagi_yojimbo
Originally posted by Mindship
It could be argued that Holism is an infinite and eternal truth. Certainly, in our observable universe, there is an apparent tendency for parts to organize into wholes, those wholes being parts which organize into still larger/more complex wholes, and so on.

Of course, our observable universe may well be an infinitesimal part of an infinitely larger, unobservable cosmos, and because it is unobservable, it's hard to say what's going on in the rest of existence.

Then again, from what we can see: as more complex wholes emerge, we see that increasing levels of consciousness also emerge.

Now if we go with the concepts that...
"God" is infinite and eternal,
"God," therefore, encompasses All of the cosmos, seen and unseen,
and that "God" is the Absolute Pinnacle of Consciousness,
...one could say that an infinite and eternal propensity of existence--whether understood materially or spiritually--is a holistic drive toward higher levels of consciousness, until "God" fully awakens.

Once awakened, He looks around, thinks, "Wow, that was cool," then does it all over again.

Or we could just say -

God is Love -- Love is eternal and absolute, and Love created everything.

Sorry -- I have a bad habit of oversimplifying things. wink

Mindship
Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
Or we could just say -
God is Love -- Love is eternal and absolute, and Love created everything.
Sorry -- I have a bad habit of oversimplifying things. wink

We could say both. wink

Regret
Originally posted by Fatima
But in this case you make God equal with human ,I mean god has the right to order the human and make laws , not necessary god must live by its laws, and yea how god violate its own laws and commands?

sorry for these questions but its alittle confusing... wink A perfectly just God would not create laws/commandments that he himself would not abide by. A God that will not abide his own laws and commandments is not perfectly just, thus not perfect. He is not equal, he is just.

debbiejo
Originally posted by Mindship
It could be argued that Holism is an infinite and eternal truth. Certainly, in our observable universe, there is an apparent tendency for parts to organize into wholes, those wholes being parts which organize into still larger/more complex wholes, and so on.

Of course, our observable universe may well be an infinitesimal part of an infinitely larger, unobservable cosmos, and because it is unobservable, it's hard to say what's going on in the rest of existence.

Then again, from what we can see: as more complex wholes emerge, we see that increasing levels of consciousness also emerge.

Now if we go with the concepts that...
"God" is infinite and eternal,
"God," therefore, encompasses All of the cosmos, seen and unseen,
and that "God" is the Absolute Pinnacle of Consciousness,
...one could say that an infinite and eternal propensity of existence--whether understood materially or spiritually--is a holistic drive toward higher levels of consciousness, until "God" fully awakens.

Once awakened, He looks around, thinks, "Wow, that was cool," then does it all over again. Very well said.. smart

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by Regret
A perfectly just God would not create laws/commandments that he himself would not abide by. A God that will not abide his own laws and commandments is not perfectly just, thus not perfect. He is not equal, he is just.


"Thou shalt not kill" - 5th Commandment


God kills:

-1st born sons of Egypt
-people of Sodom and Gomorrha
-Everyone who wasn't on Noah's Arc


erm

debbiejo

debbiejo
Something is caused (and must be caused) by something else. We know this from observation alone, as an effect cannot exist without a prior cause for that effect, such as a ripple in a pond requiring some cause, perhaps a stone being dropped within it, or an earthquake being caused by the plates beneath the earth shifting, and the earthquake is in itself the cause of buildings collapsing, and the buildings collapsing are in turn the cause of people being injured, etc. So, the cause of one effect is the effect of a prior cause, and so on, ad infinatum. However, Aquinas postulates that there must be an initial cause of all these subsequent causes, and this he terms "God". I agree with him to some extent here, in that I feel there is indeed one First Principle from which all others are derived, even if that First Principle is indescribable, infinite, and eternal. Some argue against this by asking why there cannot be a series of infinite causes, and to this I say: there is - and this series of infinite causes is God, who is infinite and the Cause of All (and also the Effect, by extension , but that's a different topic entirely). If there is a series of infinite causes, and we call this "God", then, by logical conclusion, "God" is the First Principle, which is this series of infinite causes while simultaneously being an initial (infinite) cause, thus the reality of God as I always find him: a paradox.

To illustrate this better, let us use the following example:

A = God/Big Bang
B = Cosmos
C = Earth
D = Humanity

D is the Effect of Cause C, which is the Effect of Cause B, which is the Effect of Cause A. Logically, we have a First Principle, even if it is merely postulated due to our lack of understanding or inability to grasp anything beyond that. Since humanity exists, we know that its existence is the effect of some cause, which we can possibly generalise as "Earth", since without this planet none of the life forms here could exist, and humanity could not have evolved from them. The Earth, likewise, must be the effect of something else, which is, let's say, the Cosmos, or the Universe at large, through the various workings of the Solar System and the formation, etc. of stars. This, likewise, was established by some other cause, which Science currently calls "The Big Bang". We can call this "God", for now. If we accept that "The Big Bang" was the cause of our universe, then we have a First Principle. We can effectively label this "God", as he is generally conceived of as being the "Source" of All, or the First Principle (a label like "God" and "Big Bang" remains a label).

If we find out, however, that there was something before the Big Bang, the Big Bang ceases to be the First Principle, becoming a Second Principle to whatever new information we found created that effect (God, perhaps?). Likewise, recognising that there is indeed a Demiurge, who is not the First Principle (even if he thinks he is) means that this conception of "God the Creator" is not the First Principle, but the Second, and the First Principle remains "GOD" as he truly is. God is, in effect, the First Principle in actuality, even if the subsquent principles are rearanged constantly to fit the arising of new information. God is the Source of All, the Primal Cause, the Fullness, the Centre from which everthing Emanates and Radiates, and there cannot be anything beyond or above him, because if there was, then whatever he is ceases to be "GOD" (or "the First Principle"wink and becomes a secondary principle to that which is above him, which is "GOD" and "the First Principle". So, even if we wrongly label something with these terms (such as the Demiurge), it doesn't defeat the reality that there is one Origin to which all of this goes back to (and all of this goes forward to in the End), and we label this: God.

Thus,

A = God
B = "God"
C = Cosmos
D = Earth
E = Humanity.


Just a bigger point of view that could possilby be IT. yes


http://henosis-decanus.blogspot.com/2006/11/does-god-exist.html

Regret
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
"Thou shalt not kill" - 5th Commandment


God kills:

-1st born sons of Egypt
-people of Sodom and Gomorrha
-Everyone who wasn't on Noah's Arc


erm This law has many exceptions, some of which you yourself have admittedly agreed with. If killing is necessary for defense of self or another, it is acceptable and not a sin.

Another consideration is that this command is in reference to murder and not in reference to killing that were justified

The death of the firstborn sons of Egypt is on the head of the Pharaoh, as he chose their death over the freedom of the Israelites. As Pharaoh, his responsibility was to protect them, not maintain the slave population.

The people of Sodom and Gomorrha were given the opportunity to prove that they did not deserve the destruction that occurred.

Noah was given years to convince the people that died in the flood to repent and save themselves. They chose not to listen.

There are not instances of God killing that are not accompanied by ample warning and possibility of averting such death and destruction.

Regardless, the three examples you provide are prior to the commandment you quote. Few, if any, examples of God killing exist following the statement of this command.

xmarksthespot
Bullplop.

Any god that intended to instate a law or rule would know of the law or rule prior to its establishment, let alone an apparently omniscient precognitive god, and therefore is still highly hypocritical.

Regret
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Bullplop.

Any god that intended to instate a law or rule would know of the law or rule prior to its establishment, let alone an apparently omniscient precognitive god, and therefore is still highly hypocritical. I do not disagree that God would know he would eventually instate the law. Regardless, he did not violate it prior to its instatement. It is not hypocritical.

Atlantis001
Originally posted by debbiejo
Something is caused (and must be caused) by something else. We know this from observation alone, as an effect cannot exist without a prior cause for that effect, such as a ripple in a pond requiring some cause, perhaps a stone being dropped within it, or an earthquake being caused by the plates beneath the earth shifting, and the earthquake is in itself the cause of buildings collapsing, and the buildings collapsing are in turn the cause of people being injured, etc. So, the cause of one effect is the effect of a prior cause, and so on, ad infinatum. However, Aquinas postulates that there must be an initial cause of all these subsequent causes, and this he terms "God". I agree with him to some extent here, in that I feel there is indeed one First Principle from which all others are derived, even if that First Principle is indescribable, infinite, and eternal. Some argue against this by asking why there cannot be a series of infinite causes, and to this I say: there is - and this series of infinite causes is God, who is infinite and the Cause of All (and also the Effect, by extension , but that's a different topic entirely). If there is a series of infinite causes, and we call this "God", then, by logical conclusion, "God" is the First Principle, which is this series of infinite causes while simultaneously being an initial (infinite) cause, thus the reality of God as I always find him: a paradox.

To illustrate this better, let us use the following example:

A = God/Big Bang
B = Cosmos
C = Earth
D = Humanity

D is the Effect of Cause C, which is the Effect of Cause B, which is the Effect of Cause A. Logically, we have a First Principle, even if it is merely postulated due to our lack of understanding or inability to grasp anything beyond that. Since humanity exists, we know that its existence is the effect of some cause, which we can possibly generalise as "Earth", since without this planet none of the life forms here could exist, and humanity could not have evolved from them. The Earth, likewise, must be the effect of something else, which is, let's say, the Cosmos, or the Universe at large, through the various workings of the Solar System and the formation, etc. of stars. This, likewise, was established by some other cause, which Science currently calls "The Big Bang". We can call this "God", for now. If we accept that "The Big Bang" was the cause of our universe, then we have a First Principle. We can effectively label this "God", as he is generally conceived of as being the "Source" of All, or the First Principle (a label like "God" and "Big Bang" remains a label).

If we find out, however, that there was something before the Big Bang, the Big Bang ceases to be the First Principle, becoming a Second Principle to whatever new information we found created that effect (God, perhaps?). Likewise, recognising that there is indeed a Demiurge, who is not the First Principle (even if he thinks he is) means that this conception of "God the Creator" is not the First Principle, but the Second, and the First Principle remains "GOD" as he truly is. God is, in effect, the First Principle in actuality, even if the subsquent principles are rearanged constantly to fit the arising of new information. God is the Source of All, the Primal Cause, the Fullness, the Centre from which everthing Emanates and Radiates, and there cannot be anything beyond or above him, because if there was, then whatever he is ceases to be "GOD" (or "the First Principle"wink and becomes a secondary principle to that which is above him, which is "GOD" and "the First Principle". So, even if we wrongly label something with these terms (such as the Demiurge), it doesn't defeat the reality that there is one Origin to which all of this goes back to (and all of this goes forward to in the End), and we label this: God.

Thus,

A = God
B = "God"
C = Cosmos
D = Earth
E = Humanity.


Just a bigger point of view that could possilby be IT. yes


http://henosis-decanus.blogspot.com/2006/11/does-god-exist.html


Interesting way to explain the concept of demiurge. I mean if we want to analyze things in more detail, and explain all aspects and levels of God(like the demiurge), then this is a good way to think about what the demiurge is. The demiurge is that part of God who gave birth to matter. So the cause that is causing the universe is specifically that part of God called the demiurge.


I was also thinking how can something not have a cause... like God. Perhaps if we say that God is not an effect since it cannot be observed or conceived, and maybe only effects need causes.

usagi_yojimbo
Originally posted by Regret
A perfectly just God would not create laws/commandments that he himself would not abide by. A God that will not abide his own laws and commandments is not perfectly just, thus not perfect. He is not equal, he is just.


Umm..I understand what you mean. Of course God is not a sinner. But I think you are misunderstanding what the *law* represents. Quite simply put - the *law* is God's word(Christ). And Christ being God - is the *law*.

If Christ represents and IS the *law*, then of course - what he says or does will *always* be lawful.

So in response to Lord Urizen's silly(and willfully ignorant and misleading) arguments. When the *law* takes a life - then of course, it will always be abiding by the commands - because as stated above, it quite simply IS the law(which consists of the commands) - and thus being the law - it is always abiding by itself - not by the whims of man(or anyone else for that matter).

So with all this being stated - the argument boils down to -- do you believe that the law(Christ or God) is loving?(A love of course - which consists of righteousness and perfection).

Again - as we have discussed in other threads, you can either accept
(through faith) that the law(Christ/God/Love) represents truth and is loving - or you do not. It's that simple.

ThePittman
Originally posted by Regret
Given a system of beliefs, are there any truths (facts that are generally accepted as such) that hold over from this existence to whatever eternal existence you believe in?

I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) and we believe that everything we experience in this existence is symbolic of something eternal. We also believe that God will not give us command, or place us under some law, that he himself will not follow himself. Given this perspective, we tend to view natural laws and religious laws as having an eternally based type.

Examples:

Matter can neither be destroyed or created, only altered in form. We believe that there is a substance, referred to as the light of truth, that was not created and cannot be created or destroyed. This substance is the base component of everything in existence. Thus, the Law of Conservation of Matter is an eternal truth from a Mormon perspective.

We believe that man is progressing from a primitive state to a more complex state. Intelligence organized by God from the light of truth into spirits, spirits placed into a physical frame, following the final judgement mentioned in the Bible we move to another state, and so on. A concept we term eternal progression. This concept has a type in much of the concept of evolution, and has been compared to evolution a few times that I am aware of by LDS authorities.

Does your religion, or perhaps just your personal beliefs, have any concepts that can be looked at and understood in a similar manner? I have never heard that applied to matter, energy yes but not matter. I have a few friends that are Mormons but I have never heard that before.

Regret
Originally posted by ThePittman
I have never heard that applied to matter, energy yes but not matter. I have a few friends that are Mormons but I have never heard that before. E=MC^2 matter and energy are the same thing, just differing forms. But yes, we believe everything is composed of this primal material, referred to as the light of truth.

Here are some quotes that further attack the concept of an "ex nihilo" creation.

lord xyz
Originally posted by Regret
I do not disagree that God would know he would eventually instate the law. Regardless, he did not violate it prior to its instatement. It is not hypocritical. Only someone in denial would say that.

Mindship
Originally posted by debbiejo
Very well said.. smart
smile Ty

debbiejo
Originally posted by Atlantis001
Interesting way to explain the concept of demiurge. I mean if we want to analyze things in more detail, and explain all aspects and levels of God(like the demiurge), then this is a good way to think about what the demiurge is. The demiurge is that part of God who gave birth to matter. So the cause that is causing the universe is specifically that part of God called the demiurge.


I was also thinking how can something not have a cause... like God. Perhaps if we say that God is not an effect since it cannot be observed or conceived, and maybe only effects need causes. Thanks, though not in my own words but expresses what I try to say...not good at explaining things ya know....but I do believe that all is "Cause and Effect, and this would fit right in...wouldn't it??? Wouldn't it go along with what science ..or at least many sciences are finding out...and what is neat is what I tried in my not so great way of saying it could be also evolution as well, but yet we never did know the cause to the effect. Everything needs to have a cause to have an effect right? Isn't this a "Universal Law?" And not only does this concept work in this life we live, but could explain something much in depth that is only now being discovered...slowly though and with much skepticism at least the view of the universe as it was and is still thought of as a mechanism....Newton..All is mechanical.........and put in place like a machine.

Mindship
Originally posted by Atlantis001
I was also thinking how can something not have a cause... like God.

IMO, when discussing "God," there are no limits, however impossible/inconceivable/paradoxical something may seem.

Whenever I am asked, "Where did God come from?" my answer is, "Do you want the boring answer, or the interesting answer?"

The boring (and simplest) answer is that God Always Was: no causes need apply.

When I give the interesting answer, it always goes something like this:
"Who created God?"
"God created Himself."
"How can God create Himself?"
"That's what makes God God." (and I'll throw in a sly smile, just for good measure). wink

If reality was a story (?), God would be the ultimate plot device.

usagi_yojimbo
Originally posted by Mindship
The boring (and simplest) answer is that God Always Was: no causes need apply.


Which always works well for me -- the other stuff makes my brain hurt, or maybe I am just too lazy to read and/or comprehend it all(I am thinking it is the latter of the two).

I was always the type of kid - where if my parents bought me a brand new truck - I would take the truck out of the package - and start playing with the box..He..He...He. wink laughing (throws in wry smile - and adds another obligatory one. The second is added to let everyone know -- that the post should be taken lightly..He..He..He..)

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by Regret
This law has many exceptions, some of which you yourself have admittedly agreed with. If killing is necessary for defense of self or another, it is acceptable and not a sin.



1) IT IS STILL Hypocritical on God's part. God does not need to defendhimself. Nothing should be necessary for God to do, if he is truly omnipotent.

2) You wanna talk exceptions? Okay, so I guess If I have Gay Sex to save my own life, then it's acceptable, but If i Do it for pleasure, THEN it's bad roll eyes (sarcastic)



Originally posted by Regret
Another consideration is that this command is in reference to murder and not in reference to killing that were justified

THOU SHALT NOT KILL


The Commandment CLEARLY and LITERALLY states you cannot KILL. It does NOT suggest you can kill if there's justification by ANY MEANS. Such a cop out dude....

God broke his OWN LAW....FACE IT !




Originally posted by Regret
The death of the firstborn sons of Egypt is on the head of the Pharaoh, as he chose their death over the freedom of the Israelites. As Pharaoh, his responsibility was to protect them, not maintain the slave population.



Bullshit....GOD DID NOT HAVE TO KILL THE FIRST BORN SONS OF EGYPT.... You mean to tell me that the PHAROAH somehow BLACKMAILED GOD, or that the Pharoah FORCED God to do it ? Give me a break !


"Oh the devil made me do it" now turns into "the Pharoah made me do it"....what a chicken ass cop out on God's part again.


Not only did God MURDER mass people, he murdered BABIES !

And then we wanna fight ABORTION laughing laughing laughing


God being omnipotent and all, could have easily time-froze the pharaoh, teleported the Isrealites out of Egypt, given change to Pharoah's heart, KILL THE PHAROAH HIMSELF, or the the VERY LEAST KILL ONLY the Pharoah's son and no one else.

But no....he made a desparate move by killing young boys.....


Your God is CERTAINLY a limitted one yes






Originally posted by Regret
The people of Sodom and Gomorrha were given the opportunity to prove that they did not deserve the destruction that occurred.


Yes....just being HUMAN....no wait....just being a LIVING CREATURE should prove you do not deserve destruction.

Yet again, this does NOT counter my point in ANY way, shape, or form. God could have easily erased them from existance, rewind time so thier sins were never committed, or an infinite number of other things....but he decided to be a drama queen and murder hundreds of people.

YOU GO GOD !

Break your own LAWS, and do it in STYLE !


Careful.....God's gonna get YA ! fear







Originally posted by Regret
Noah was given years to convince the people that died in the flood to repent and save themselves. They chose not to listen.


Probably because he had no PROOF the same way you have no proof of God's existance. I guess God will eventually wipe us all out again laughing


Again, this does not counter my point. God killed BILLIONS of people this time.....Hitler must be JEALOUS !





Originally posted by Regret
There are not instances of God killing that are not accompanied by ample warning and possibility of averting such death and destruction.


So what ? The Mafia gives you a warning before they kill you. The Inquisition gave warning to people before they tortured and killed them (in the name of your God, btw)....my old bully used to give me warnings before pounding my ass to cream...

Somehow, your God is better ?







Originally posted by Regret
Regardless, the three examples you provide are prior to the commandment you quote. Few, if any, examples of God killing exist following the statement of this command.


So what ? I thought God's will was UNCHANGING....a YES, ANOTHER CONTRADICTION......



Thank You Regret for proving what absolute uncertainty and insecurity follows Christianity. thumb up

Regret
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
So what ? I thought God's will was UNCHANGING....a YES, ANOTHER CONTRADICTION...... Urizen, you merely do not understand my position and are unwilling to listen whenever I have attempted to clarify it for you. I'm not going to attempt to clarify it again. My view, and pretty much the general Mormon, view of theology is drastically different than that of mainstream Christianity. You cannot take your preconceptions based in mainstream Christianity and assume that they automatically apply to my, the Mormon, interpretation of Biblical statements, on many of the big issues is Christian theology we differ.

God is unchanging, what does this mean? God's will does not change, but methods used do. Man is the subject and as the subject changes so does the method employed, to believe otherwise is in error. The subject should be its own control, its own baseline. Study AB and ABA experimental design. God's purpose is unchanging. God's will is unchanging. Man is changing, Man must then be treated differentially based on the state that man is in. You seem to have the inability to grasp this concept.

The rest of your post is merely justification for your beliefs, and only true from your perspective. Also, you responded rather rudely and insultingly. I am tired of dealing with you when you behave in this manner, and as such I will not respond more than I have here. I do not hold this against you, and have already let the insult pass, but without contact with some consequence how would you learn?

Atlantis001

Mindship
IMO, words are first a map then a barrier to truth. At some point, one has to stop reading the menu and taste the meal. Then truth is self-evident, requiring not our understanding, only our witness.

jerry

Shakyamunison
The only eternal true is "we were".

Lord Urizen
"we is"

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
"we is"

Not forever.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.