3 votes

Liberty Practice Challenge

On the subject of Goals: a member of this forum Judge Bartley offered comments and a link concerning the practice of Liberty as a rule, or a challenge, in our world.

My words, my take on things.

To be more specific the exchange of information, or the discussion, which is a competitive endeavor seeking higher quality and lower cost viewpoints by comparative analysis on the original purpose behind The Constitution.

Please note that the question can be general or specific, and where it is general the answer will be the collective sum, or aggregate total, of many people sharing the same goal, while the specific answer will be more accurate as to the actual goal being shared by each individual person.

Generally speaking The Constitution can be understood as a thing that is used to improve government.

Yes, many people may say, I agree, as this is a common goal, to improve, so, by all means, let us improve government.

How?

It has been a long fought battle on my part to nail down the specific goals in mind for the specific people involved, so as to understand why these specific improvements were made so as to make government better, according to those people who made government better, and that general question has a very specific example in the change from The Articles of Confederation to The Constitution.

Why, specifically, was it changed, and how was the specific goal reached, in that specific case.

A. No Constitution (People subject to British Rule, fleeing Britain, Settling in America, then becoming ruled by the Monarchy step, by fearful step, once again)

B. The Declaration of Independence and The Articles of Confederation leading to Published Rebellion and Invasion by a Criminal Army sent by the Monarchy to enforce obedience upon Targeted Individuals (all who refuse to obey)

C. Elimination of the Invading Criminal Army and a sudden and rapid force employed toward the goal of altering The Articles of Confederation into The Constitution, or, in more specific terms: the removal of a working Democratic Federated Republic and the empowering of a Single Nation State.

Having my own viewpoint, not having a viewpoint handed down to me, I can not write the script written by someone else, I write the script written by me. That above is the way I see it, and I must add:

D.
Removal of Legal Money Competition under a working Democratic Federated Republic and instead of Legal Money Competition those people who created The Constitution ushered in a new age of enforced Legal Money Monopoly, because that was their goal.

In the Practice of Liberty, it seems to me, people will volunteer to meet and discuss and make deals so as to avoid something terrible, so as to avoid horrible things, so as to avoid costly actions, and so as to avoid being subject to the designs of criminals, including the goal of avoiding subjugation by Legal Criminals.

How far away from Liberty have a people become when those people don't even have a word for Legal Criminals.

In the past, it seems to me, the operating term, the word, for a Legal Criminal was a Monarchist, or Nationalist, or a Tory or Loyalist.

"Oh, yea, the guy down the block, he is a Tory, a Loyalist, one of those guys who feeds the Army that is now occupying our homes, stealing from us, raping our women, killing us, torturing us, because we have the audacity to refuse to feed them, so that they can grow even more powerful while their targeted victims grow even weaker by that obedience to that arrangement."

"Under duress?"

"What?"

"Does he feed them under duress, you know, at the point of a bayonet?"

"No, no, no, he will trample upon, or stampede over, his own grandma to get in line to lick their boots, are you kidding me?"

"Really?"

"A toady to sociopaths is what he is, I declare."

"Sycophant!"

"Exactly, pining for a position in the new realm is my guess."

"A steady income as an informant most likely eh?"

"What else?"

"Truly"




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Truth as a math problem

Truth = no error in perception

The concept of god, as I see it, is like this:

God = Everything as it is, without error

So the connection between mere mortals and God is how we perceive the things we perceive, and so long as we see things the way they truly are, without error, or so long as we see accurately, and so long as we avoid false perception, then we can see what God sees if God were looking with our eyes at the things we see.

This is where I tend to be suspicious concerning people who profess to know God.

I don't.

I only look at some things, very few things, and when I see things my perception of things often turn out to be off the mark widely.

Take care on your errands.

Joe

Another Truth Equation

God = Truth

God > Man

Truth > Man

Which may be why You said, "I only look at some things, very few things, and when I see things my perception of things often turn out to be off the mark widely"

God says: Isaiah 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. 9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

Math is a tool

A measuring device, any example of any one imaginable, has a purpose.

Take a ruler for example.

What is the purpose of inventing a ruler?

Is it to lie, or is it to know the truth?

A ruler with marks on it can be used to measure the length of something in such a way as to then be able to communicate that length of that thing, exactly, or very close to being exact.

In place of a ruler with marks on it a liar can invent and produce a ruler with marks that can be moved, like changing the goal posts in games, each time the targeted victims start using the new marks on the ruler, the ruler changes the marks in his favor, or in the National Interest.

The victims are led to believe that they have a ruler, so they stop looking for one, when the actual fact of their condition is such that they are ruled by their own blind belief in falsehood.

Truth > Falsehood = don't be victim to the falsehoods invented and produced by those who know the truth but prefer that you don't

Knowledge of falsehood > belief in lies

Skepticism may be needed where blind obedience is suggested when someone offers something for nothing?

Joe

You wrote: What is the

You wrote: What is the purpose of inventing a ruler?
Answer: The purpose for inventing a ruler is so that there is a standard measure for length. It is wrong to pervert measurements.

God says:
Proverbs 11:1 A false balance is abomination to the LORD: but a just weight is his delight.
Proverbs 16:11 A just weight and balance are the LORD'S: all the weights of the bag are his work.
Proverbs 20:23 Divers weights are an abomination unto the LORD; and a false balance is not good.

You wrote: Skepticism may be needed where blind obedience is suggested when someone offers something for nothing?
Answer 2 Samuel 22:31 As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the LORD is tried : he is a buckler to all them that trust in him.

Question: Are you comparing the Scriptures to a ruler that has been changed over time for National Interests?

Question:

"Are you comparing the Scriptures to a ruler that has been changed over time for National Interests?"

When I looked into the Waco Massacre I asked for and received an audio recording on one of those older cassette tapes and that supposed nut job Vernon Howell A.K.A. David Koresh A.K.A. The Sinful Messiah spoke on that audio tape, supposedly it was the actual person, not the myth, not the demon, and that guy said that according to his understanding of God it was up to each individual person to judge the truth, and that it was not a good idea to listen to someone claiming to speak for God.

Those are not the exact words on the tape, those are my interpretations of the words on the tape.

If you can get the original copies of these Scriptures that you speak of and from them I can read for myself what was said, without someone else interpreting them for me, then I can begin to trust the scriptures themselves as the words written by whoever wrote them.

Even if God did tell the author who wrote the scriptures to write exactly what was told to the author by God there is still a possibility that something was lost in the translation, or something added.

The ruler analogy does not work well, since a ruler can be compared to another ruler, and if both are the same, then those two rulers prove the rule. If there is a third ruler compared to the two previous rulers and it too is the same, then there is more proof of the accuracy of those rulers.

What happens when one out of 1000 rulers has a mark that is off by some amount? Which ruler would you use to measure the amount of difference between the 999 rulers that are all the same and the 1 ruler that is not the same?

How many people say that there is only 1 God?

Do they all see the same God?

If 999 see the same God and 1 has a slightly different view, and the difference is that 999 say that seeing the 1 God differently means that you go to hell, and so long as you see the 1 God just like us, you go to heaven, but the one odd ball says that the God the he, or she, can see is almost the same except the part where failure to conform is eternal damnation, starting here on Earth with living Hell, and so long as you keep in line you will experience rapture with all the conformists, and on that point alone, so far as he or she can tell, the God in view says no such thing, that is it OK to see God your own way.

I can't ask God and expect a booming manly voice to respond to my question as I ask him, or her, or it, or whatever, to prove to me that the God I see is the true one and not the half true one.

I can rely on your viewpoint, but your viewpoint appears to me to be dependent upon many other authorities who have gained authority that I can't trust, not on my life.

God to me can be understood as the life force, and God can be measured as life exists, and when there is no more life, anywhere, ever again, forever, then who will tell me I am wrong?

I am probably wrong, I'm not God. I don't know the truth, I am guessing, but I can guess, because I am alive, and I know I am alive, because I know, beyond any doubt, at least one thing, I know that I can perceive. Call it self awareness, and use English. That is as close to God as I have gotten so far. I can perceive, thanks God, I am aware of at least one truth.

I'm somewhat skeptical concerning anyone claiming to know God any better.

Do you know what ectropy means?

Joe

How do we know

II Peter 2:12 Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the present truth. 13 Yea, I think it meet, as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting you in remembrance; 14 Knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath shewed me. 15 Moreover I will endeavour that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance. 16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased . 18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard , when we were with him in the holy mount. 19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed , as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn , and the day star arise in your hearts: 20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Have you heard of the Dead Sea Scrolls? They are a modern day validation, of the Old Testament Scriptures. However, they are not written in the English language.

The reason we need the Scriptures is to know what God says. If one ruler of measurement has the wrong marks is wrong even though it is a ruler. That is why we must have God's Word because all of our words are inaccurate rulers which will cause us to miss the mark.

I hear you asking: How do we know the Scriptures (I am speaking of the 66 books found in the old and new testament) are the Word of God, or for any matter, any scriptures anywere and in any religion are God's words?

Ectropy: increasing in order resulting from growth and development. It is the opposite of Entropy, which is the measure of disorder. Our universe follows the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics whereby entropy increase and decrease are reciprocal and dependant upon one another in an even exchange.

Trust

I don't trust middlemen (or women) who perceive something and then they tell me that their version is beyond any doubt the truth, unless I can also trust that same process as I repeat it.

Even then I try to keep an open mind.

I can trust in the value of keeping an open mind.

How do you know that the Devil didn't write the Scriptures?

Joe

How do you know there is a

How do you know there is a Devil with a capital D? I'm being funny :) But you can answer if you want.

"You said “unless I can trust that same process as I repeat it.” The word translated “believe” in the English New Testament comes from the Greek verb “pistueo” which is defined as “to trust, to rely upon.” Each time a person responds to the Bible statement: “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved…” (Acts 16:31) by trusting in Jesus Christ as their sole Savior from sin they are in fact saved. This process has been repeated for thousands of years by hundred of thousands of people. Each and every time a person puts their trust in Jesus to save them they are redeemed. This is only possible because Jesus Christ uniquely met every qualification outlined in the Old Testament to be mankind’s Messiah, the innocent one who would die for the guilty. The validation for this comes when we accept the Bible as not the words of men, but the very word of God (1 Thess 2:13). Bible skeptics long criticized the veracity of the Scripture, arguing that modern Bibles could not be reliable copies of the originals written so long ago. This claim was shattered when the Dead Sea Scrolls (discovered in the late 1940’s) confirmed the linguistic and grammatical accuracy of modern Bibles. Prior to this, the oldest manuscripts of any Old Testament book were from the 12th century AD. The Dead Sea Scrolls push the manuscript dates back over one thousand years to 150 BCE. The claim of an “unreliable” modern Bible is typically a smokescreen to avoid having to deal with the truths of Scripture. Ultimately everyone will stand before their Creator and answer for what they did or did not do with the work of Jesus Christ on behalf of sinful man." (This paragraph was written by my husband because I asked for his help.)

Evil with a D

I read the offering of text, all of it, awhile ago, and here is my viewpoint on religion.

I've had time to put my viewpoint into words:

We who are alive are connected to a physical world, and there is something more to us than just the physical world, but our perception of both the physical world and anything other than the physical world is limited, some are more limited than others on a scale.

A hydrogen atom may be much more intimately connected into the physical world and much less connected to a living awareness or self awareness or whatever is meant when people use words like spirit, soul, conscious, conscience, morality, good, evil, right, wrong, legal, criminal, love, hate, concern, thoughts, awareness, etc.

A supernatural being, or God, may be on a whole different scale, not limited in awareness at all, making us living beings appear to be as unaware as a rock is unaware compared to us human beings, for example.

The physical connections can be measured by observing and manipulating the physical connections, but on the subject of religion, what is the actual connection between the physical world and any, if there is one, other world?

How are other things, other worlds, other places, or non-places, known, what is the connecting medium between the physical and the non-physical - for lack of a more accurate word.

How is the other world measured accurately, so as to brand it with a better word?

God

Truth

Take your pick.

I don't care which word is used, but I can say with confidence that I don't know the answer. I don't know the connecting medium. I can guess.

What is the exact point at which I, or anyone, is awake one moment and then dreaming the next moment? What connects the two states of awareness? In one state, where I am awake, I am perceiving the physical world, and then I am asleep, dreaming, and I am definitely not perceiving the physical world - as far as I know - I am confident, or definite, dreams are perceptions of something other than the physical world.

What connects the two states of perception?

Wake and then Sleep, then awake again, and at the exact moment one stops and the other begins what happens?

Some people may say that the brain creates self awareness, but I'm not so sure.

Another way to find the connection between the physical world and the possibility of another world, a spirit world, a world where God is, perhaps, is the concept of intuition and in that I again look for the moment in time where regular old perception becomes intuitive perception. What turns off so as to turn on something else, and again some people may explain that as chemical reactions and electric current flowing here and there in the brain, and that is all there is, when those physical things stop, there is nothing going on anymore.

I'm not so sure, again, because intuition suggests something more than mere perception of the physical world. How is it that people alive in the physical world can connect with any other worlds, such as a spiritual world, other than death?

Is it possible, or is it instead: constant, but not readily perceptible?

As to the question asked and the answer offered I ask for something more specific than redemption as proof since I don't know what redemption is, and if it is worth getting, then I may ask for instructions, step by step orders to follow to reach this goal of redemption, and if I follow all the steps and come up short does that mean that I am incapable of redemption or just incorrigible?

Joe

Redemption

Joe,
I am writing in response to my wife's wanting me to weigh in on the issues of "perception", "truth" et al.

"...I don't know what redemption is, and if it is worth getting, then I may ask for instructions, step by step orders to follow to reach this goal of redemption, and if I follow all the steps and come up short does that mean that I am incapable of redemption or just incorrigible?"

Our Creator desires a relationship with man as we were uniquely made in His image. However, man's rebellion created a barrier (sin) to man having a relationship with the Holy God. The Bible records that the priciple of redemption/atonement for sin requires the loss of life, THE INNOCENT DIES FOR THE GUILTY. The first demonstration of the principle THE INNOCENT DIES FOR THE GUILTY was soon after the Fall when the Lord Himself killed an innocent animal to make coats of skins to cover Adam & his wife (Gen.3:23). This principle, repeated throughout the Old Testament,is codified in the sacrifical system of offering up first born lambs to remind the Jewish nation of their shortcomings. The opposite of THE INNOCENT DIES FOR THE GUILTY is human merit. ONE'S GOOD DEEDS OUTWEIGHING ONE'S BAD DEEDS as a means of being acceptable to God is the foundation of religion. The Bible declares that human merit (human righteousness) is wholly inadequate. God's declare human good deeds to be "filthy rags" detestible and unwelcome to Him. (Isaiah 64:6) The famous fig leaves that Adam and Eve wore we a picture of man covering his failing with his effort. The fig leaf clothes were a total failure as leaves deteriorate rapidly, neccesitaing something better, God's covering. Fast-forward to the New Testament, Jesus is given the title "the Lamb of God" that takes away the sin of the world. The final declaration of THE INNOCENT DIES FOR THE GUILTY is the horrific death of Jesus Christ on the cross "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God," 1 Peter 3:18.
So the price for redemption has already been paid in history.

Now, the step-by-step orders to make that redemption personal are found in God's Word, the question "What must I do to be saved?" (Acts 16:30) and the clear, concise answer "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved" (Acts 16:31).

Notice it is NOT "believe+baptism" or "believe+church affiliation", in fact, adding anything to the Bible's requirement makes salvation of man, not of God!

Most people read Acts 16 and figure since they believe that Jesus was a historical character they are OK with God. They believe in Jesus Christ in the same way they believe in Abraham Lincoln or George Washington. However, "believe" as used in Acts 16 and other New Testament passages does NOT mean to merely believe the historical facts about something, rather, the Greek word (pisteuo)rendered "believe' means "to trust, to rely upon." Why is the word meaning for "believe" so important? We cannot "trust or rely upon" Abe Lincoln or George Washington to help us because they are dead, they are powerless to do anything for us. The good news is Jesus Christ arose from the dead, is ALIVE, and will save all who will "trust & rely upon" Him alone for their salvation!

Joe, thank you for reading thus far, I leave with this true account,

A simple illustration of "believing" vs. "trusting":
In 1859, the tight-rope walker named Jean-Francious Gravelet "the Great Blondin" crossed Niagara Falls and asked the crowd on one side of the falls if they believed he could carry a man on his shoulders safely across to the other side. The crowd applauded to affirm their belief that he could do it, but when asked, none were willing to accept his offer. Finally, a man in the crowd (his manager, Harry Colcord) trusted Gravelet to carry him safely across to the other side. He not only believed the Great Blondin could do it, but he actually climbed on his shoulders, and was carried safely across. Many "believed", but only one "trusted." The same is true regarding Jesus Christ, many today believe he died on the cross and rose again, but few trust Him to save them from their sin! Below is a link to an actual photo of the Great Blondin carrying his manager, Harry Colcord, across Niagara Falls in 1859:
http://dklevick.wordpress.com/2011/06/02/those-crazy-men-and...

Right where you are at your computer reading this, won’t you quit trusting in your perception, your family heritage, or your good outweighing your bad and begin trusting the Lord Jesus Christ to save you? Jesus is alive and qualified to redeem you from sin’s penalty the moment you make Him your sole hope of salvation!

Sincerely, Jeff

Thanks

The value of your help may not be appreciated fully by me, but not for lack of effort on my part, as far as I can tell.

I had a very strong inspiration to stop here:

"The opposite of THE INNOCENT DIES FOR THE GUILTY is human merit. ONE'S GOOD DEEDS OUTWEIGHING ONE'S BAD DEEDS as a means of being acceptable to God is the foundation of religion."

In the effort to understand I followed the concept of THE INNOCENT DIES FOR THE GUILTY up to that point in those quotes above, and my guess is that you may be intending to convey accurate meaning, and the problems associated with accomplishing that goal are another subject entirely.

A life form that destroys another life form is guilty of destroying another life form such as a human being eating a plant.

That may not be exactly what was meant, but I have this idea of a Principle, and so the degree is secondary, as the Principle is primary.

Such as:

A small lie is still a lie. A big lie is still a lie. The difference between a small lie and a big lie is a matter of degree, not a matter of principle.

I don't know if I'm understanding the principle, so I communicate my understanding of the principle thus far.

Then:
"ONE'S GOOD DEEDS OUTWEIGHING ONE'S BAD DEEDS"

My understanding of GOD is such that GOD is truth, and that is something I can understand fully, without reservation, a firm belief, and there can be no argument, as far as I can see.

As to what is GOOD and what is not GOOD, or what is BAD, I can agree, with my limited capacity to understand the truth, that GOOD is that which promotes life and BAD is that which destroys life, so...I think that I understand up to this point.

I'll read on (and I wanted to document my progress in case there was an interest in further communication on your part).

"So the price for redemption has already been paid in history."

That is a lot of fast forwarding, and I can understand that no one is paying you to sermonize on the internet. I have very many questions concerning your wife's reading assignment and it is possible, very likely in fact, that I can find someone closer to home to offer up some competitive answers.

I do appreciate the effort.

"Notice it is NOT "believe+baptism" or "believe+church affiliation", in fact, adding anything to the Bible's requirement makes salvation of man, not of God!"

I am as if two people, right now. One of me says: "I believe that God is truth, absolutely, there is no question, even if I question: the act of questioning confirms the understanding each time I question it.

The other me considers the very real possibility that I am totally inadequate at knowing what is or is not God, or the truth, and therefore I'm just guessing, and my guesses are probably pathetic, as in pathology.

I will read on.

"Most people read Acts 16 and figure since they believe that Jesus was a historical character they are OK with God. They believe in Jesus Christ in the same way they believe in Abraham Lincoln or George Washington."

Just a note here:

My reading of Jesus is such that he is one of the original good guys, in history, the history I've encountered. On the other hand the Lincoln and Washington examples are counterfeit. Should that suggest to me that either I am wrong or right? If I am wrong then Jesus is the counterfeit and Lincoln and Washington are the real good guys. I am merely voicing my pathology.

A dilemma.

"The good news is Jesus Christ arose from the dead, is ALIVE, and will save all who will "trust & rely upon" Him alone for their salvation!"

The message I get from those words is: There is hope.

I very much agree with that message, even if that was not exactly the message intended.

"Joe, thank you for reading thus far, I leave with this true account,"

I stopped there to respond with a confession, that I do trust people as a habit, or rule, or condition of life, some people think it is a weakness, as in: naive.

"Right where you are at your computer reading this, won’t you quit trusting in your perception, your family heritage, or your good outweighing your bad and begin trusting the Lord Jesus Christ to save you? Jesus is alive and qualified to redeem you from sin’s penalty the moment you make Him your sole hope of salvation!"

That is tough, very tough, in that context exactly. I would not have been one of the people believing that it was possible to carry someone over that wire. I've been to Niagara Falls. I would certainly not have climbed on his shoulders.

But...

If someone ever says to me that they are Jesus, returned from the dead, being who I am, in my naive condition, I will believe him, until he proves otherwise, and all it will take is one lie, and I'll know he, or she, is a fraud.

Joe

Niagara Falls

I too have been to the Falls. The shear power and noise of the water make Gravelet & Colcord’s historical feat truly impressive! Many believed that day, but only one trusted. This is exactly the situation regarding man and Jesus Christ. Many acknowledge his place in history, but due to human reasoning, misinformation and fear, few act upon His promise with child-like faith to save them from their sin. Jesus is far more than a good man or exalted teacher. Jesus of Nazereth is the only one qualified to be the recipient of our faith because He is the only one who meets every requirement of the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) regarding the Messiah (“rescuer”). The Bible declared Messiah would be born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14), born in Bethlehem of Judea (Micah 5:2), have his hands & feet pierced in death (Psalm 22:16), would not defend himself when falsely accused (Isaiah 53:7) and many more. Regarding the piercing of his hands & feet, when David wrote Psalm 22 in the 9th century B.C. (over 900 years before the birth of Jesus) crucifixion as a form of execution was not practiced. Crucifixion only becomes viable around 300 years prior to Christ’s birth. This and other fulfilled prophecies affirm the Bible’s unique accuracy and divine inspiration. Just last Wednesday, I spoke to the graduating senior class of our local high school. Our church presented leather-bound Bibles to each senior with their names imprinted on the cover. I had brought the owner’s manual of my car and compared it to the Bible. I related an incident I recently had with my “check engine light.” I dreaded dealing with it, thought it was going to cost me money and a trip to the dealership 75 miles away. I called the service manager and he asked me if I had read the front page of the owner’s manual. I sheepishly said “no”, to which he then quoted from the front the page in bold: “the check engine light will come on if the gas cap is not completely tightened.” I simply needed to know and act up the designer’s instructions to avoid undue worry and false fears. The same applies to the Bible, it truly is our “owner’s manual” given to us by our Designer and Maker. We simply need to know what it says (2 Timothy 2:15) and respond to it's direction.
Regarding Washington & Lincoln, they were merely used as well-known historical characters that no one disputes lived.

Trust

I do not want to bite the hand that feeds me.

I do want to know how anyone could know, by what process, the Bible was written by the Devil, if it were written by the Devil, and God was just testing us.

This is my standard question asked of every person who I meet when the connection of trust in God, or belief in Jesus Christ, is communicated between anyone and my own being.

I am being trustworthy here, as far as I am able to know.

Perhaps I don't trust myself enough to trust Jesus Christ?

I do not claim to be knowledgeable or in any way authoritative concerning the word of God. My capacity to calculate, or think, or know, even as I may resort to intuition, fact from fiction, leads me to conclude, beyond any shadow of doubt, that God is Truth, and I'm not God.

I don't know much more than that, therefore your help is appreciated, again.

How can anyone conclude that The Bible is not written by The Devil and God is testing us with it?

What if it is written by devilish people (or re-written by devilish people) so as to do very bad things with it, such as The Crusades, and The Inquisition, for 2 examples?

Persecute Palestinians?

Joe

Who Authored the Bible?

The authority and origin of Scripture has been questioned since man was first in the Garden when the serpent said “Hath God said?” to Eve (Genesis 3:1). This is still Satan's primary modus operandi, to cast doubt on the Author so His words will become suspect.

A person’s view of Scripture is the determinate factor of whether or not they are willing to recognize its authority in their lives. Those who demean, discount, or deny the Bible’s authority will not submit to its mandates. While it is prudent to not take things “hook, line, & sinker”, it is also dangerous to repeat the error that the disciple Thomas committed when he declared that his personal requirements must be satisfied before he would believe. Jesus rebuked his demand for “proof” and for not exercising child-like faith in His earlier promise that He would rise again after three days (John 20:26-30).

Science and world religions were in agreement that the earth was flat for thousands of years. Science and religion finally “discovered” that the earth was not flat at the end of the 15th century A.D.. The Scriptures had declared it to be round all along (Isaiah 40:22). Isaiah wrote under Divine inspiration 2,100 years before Columbus sailed westard. Joe, even more amazing is the fact that the Hebrew word translated “circle” (chuwg) implies sphericity, not merely a flat geometric “circle.”

Rather than list more evidences (scientific & historical) that demonstrate that Bible is not the product of human wisdom or chance, I refer you to “Evidence That Demands A Verdict” Volumes 1 & 2 by Josh McDowell. An exhaustive work which cites hundreds of passages with fully documented verification.

Who authored the Bible? Common men wrote the words that became the Scriptures under the direct inspiration of their Creator (2 Peter 1:20, 21). God “breathed” the Word that they recorded while allowing their individual character to be involved (i.e. Matthew’s gospel has more references to coinage and money value as he was a Roman tax collector. In John’s gospel, he details the exact number of fish caught, as he was a professional fisherman. Luke’ gospel contains medical terminology absent from the other three gospels, as was a trained physician).

The greatest compliment that can be paid a person or audience is the one that a group of first century believers in Thessalonica, Greece received “For this cause also thank we God without ceasing because when you received the word of God which you heard of us, you received not as the word of men but as it is in truth, the Word of God, which effectually works also in you that believe.” (1 Thessalonians 2:13) These believers did not rationalize, dispute, or reason away what God was telling them to do.

Men, governments, and organized religions have and will continue to twist, pervert, and misconstrue the Bible for their own advantage. Egregious acts like the Inquisition have no part of New Testament Christianity, but are the acts of those masquerading as Christians, whose actions have tainted the reputation of all who name the name of Jesus Christ.

Mandates

In discussions with people who knocked on our door, and I welcome discussion of religion, I have encountered diverse answers to these questions I now ask of you.

Some people have told me that the answer to the question who wrote the Bible was not the Devil because it says so in the Bible.

Your answer did no such thing, which makes sense, there is something else at work not just words on paper.

On to mandates:

I've been told that I have to believe or I will go to hell, but if I do believe, then I get a ticket to heaven, so my response has been what if someone spends their entire life never harming anyone and in fact their entire life is spent helping many people, but they die never having ever done what constitutes this requirement to believe, do they go to hell.

The answer has been yes, they go to hell.

Then I ask, say, a guy like Josef Mengele, experimenting on children, breaking their arms to see how many times they can be broken and yet still heal, and they do that type of thing from the first moment as a child they can torture animals until the moment before death, and the number of his victims, including all the family members of those tortured, and those mass murdered, are millions, or even hundreds of millions, and then the last few minutes before death, this guy believes: does he go to heaven?

The answer has been yes, he goes to heaven.

My answer to that still is that I don't want to go to that heaven.

Even if I could find the way to believe, if that is the nature of this arrangement, then I do not want to believe, but if I believe, I do, and if I do not, then I don't, so it really isn't my choice is it?

I had to look up the word sphericity.

I am not a doubting person, doubting this and that, why should I, what stake do I have in doubt? Either something is, or it is not, and my ability to know better is a work in progress. I sure can use help. When a message is contradictory then the message is the generator of contradiction, it is the source of skepticism, not my choice to invent skepticism, out of thin air.

Take the Mormons for example.

They sit, we talk, we get to the part where their authority is embodied in living prophets who teach of the need to know better concerning false prophets. OK, that sounds very wise.

How can you tell a counterfeit one from a real one?

The answer is we know better.

I ask, OK, what does the Prophet say about sending fine young men as yourself over to another place on this earth to fight these aggressive wars for profit?

The profit says go, go and fight.

Really?

Other members of another group, I have their literature, claim that Jews have been promised land in the Middle East and therefore those people on that land have to get out, because God says so.

And if they don't leave, as ordered by God, is it then OK to torture and mass murder them squatters who happen to have been squatting their for centuries?

Of course, since God says, they must leave, and they will leave, because God says.

The Lord works in mysterious ways.

I prefer to think that the Truth is what it is, God if English conveys accurate meaning, Truth, God, Truth, all beyond my pathetic power to know better. I can spot a contradiction, and if I am wrong about what I think is a contradiction, then I want to know better, so help is appreciated.

What mandates are absolutely required, according to God, and what happens if one of these absolutely required mandates are not followed as ordered?

Joe

Joe, Please accept my apology

Joe,
Please accept my apology for not responding to your last post in a timelier manner.

On to mandates:
"I've been told that I have to believe or I will go to hell, but if I do believe, then I get a ticket to heaven..."
Joe, you do not receive a ticket to Heaven, rather, at the moment you "believe" (trust, rely upon) the Lord Jesus Christ, a miracle of regeneration occurs called the new birth. Jesus told Nicodemus in John 3 that he "must be born again" three separate times. Without the new birth we remain fleshly, dead in sins, cut off from our Creator. "God is Spirit, they that worship Him must worship Him in Spirit and in Truth" John 4. I am just the chapter reference, as it is always best to read the verse in the context of the surrounding passage. Cult groups are masters at proof texting the Bible to teach what was never intended. The new birth is the work of God that cannot be accomplished by any human agency.

"So my response has been what if someone spends their entire life never harming anyone and in fact their entire life is spent helping many people, but they die never having ever done what constitutes this requirement to believe, do they go to hell.
The answer has been yes, they go to hell.
Then I ask, say, a guy like Josef Mengele, experimenting on children, breaking their arms to see how many times they can be broken and yet still heal, and they do that type of thing from the first moment as a child they can torture animals until the moment before death, and the number of his victims, including all the family members of those tortured, and those mass murdered, are millions, or even hundreds of millions, and then the last few minutes before death, this guy believes: does he go to heaven?
The answer has been yes, he goes to heaven”.

Heaven will consist of forgiven transgressors of God’s laws. We are the ones that make human distinctions disqualifying those who have committed certain egregious behaviors (classics are child molesters, serial killers, Hitler, etc.) based on our own defective code of conduct. Moses committed murder, David committed adultery and murder, Saul/Paul was a religious extremist that murdered and jailed men, women, and possibly children for their faith, yet all three of these criminal people were forgiven when they sincerely sought the Lord for forgiveness. I too was a blasphemer, mocking God and any that who attended church or carried Bibles. I perceived them as weak and gullible.
Looking back at who I was, I concur with Paul’s statement “This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.” 1 Timothy 1.
Regarding Mengele theoretically believing moments prior to death, we have the record in Luke 23 that one of the criminals being executed next to Jesus, called out to Him in faith and was forgiven. It is never recommended in Scripture to wait to be saved, in fact “Now is the accepted time, behold, now is the day of salvation” 2 Corinthians 6 is the standard. I am sure there have been soldiers dying on the battlefield that have called out in faith to Christ, were forgiven of their sins, and experienced the new birth moments before death, but one should never presume they will have a later opportunity “Boast not thyself of tomorrow, for thou knowest not what a day may bring forth.” Proverbs 27

"My answer to that still is that I don't want to go to that heaven."
Joe, this response reveals that you either do not understand the alternate eternal destiny of all mankind, “the lake of fire” described in Revelation 20 and by Jesus over 70 times, or you have a not understood the Biblical parameters regarding “that” Heaven. I’ll address these as soon as I can devote time for a well-reasoned response.

No need

I see no need to apologize, so acceptance would be counterfeit, or at least a poor substitute.

The concept of trust in God so long as God is Truth is very easy for me to see. The concept of placing a face, or name, on God, or The Son of God, is foreign to me, and every time I start imagining such a thing as true, I get images from pictures, or paintings, or figures on crosses, but no actual truth that can constitute belief, so far.

I can work on it, and please don't feel any need to expend any effort on my account as I'm not expecting anything, my goal is merely to offer and perceive competitive points of view, so as to have more, rather than not enough, options from which to find the best possible one, rather than settling for less. There will be forks in the road, a wrong turn can be very destructive.

Joe

Evil with a D, S, or L

Evil with a D, S, or L

John 8:44 Jesus speaks to the scribes and pharasees:
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do . He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

2 Corinthians 11:14
And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

Isaiah 14:12
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning ! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

1 Peter 5:8
Be sober , be vigilant ; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about , seeking whom he may devour :

If it were agreeable with you, I would like to request my husband to address the information regarding a more sure proof than redemption. I say this because as you see, I am the one asking you all the questions. The questions I ask are about this side of eternity. While important, my questions are not nearly as important as your eternal soul. I fear that I may not be equipped to meet the requirements in the questions you pose to adequately answer you in an intellectual manner.

D,S,L?

dEvil

sEvil

lEvil

Words are tools to record perceptions and thoughts by an individual for save keeping, it seems to me, so as to keep those perceptions and thoughts handy, as in the saying: Those who fail to remember errors are doomed to repeat them.

There is a scale at work here too:

Those who can remember the source of great power may keep that power ready and working.

Words also help communicate these valuable (and even the not so valuable) perceptions and thoughts from one entity, or person, or individual, to another.

The assumption is that words are accurate.

Another scale emerges into view, from my viewpoint.

False words on one end and true words on the other end, and that is why I like John 8:44.

On one end is falsehood and on the other end is truth.

Truth may not be kind, to who?

Joe

It looks like I need to do

It looks like I need to do some reading on the Antony C. Sutton document links. (That is why I liked the woods, deal...videos) Unfortunately, I think I wanted to be spoonfed by Woods videos. I'll start reading Sutton :)

There is a word for "Legal Criminals."

To understand it, first recognize that the essence of "crime" is initiating the use of force against another person: injuring them, restricting their liberty to do anything that's peaceful, or depriving them of their justly acquired property without their consent. And also recognize what "crime" is NOT: disobeying some politician's command and threat, which the politician names "law."

Keep those ideas in mind, and you will discover that the one word that perfectly identifies "legal criminals" is "government." Quoth George Washington, "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." If anything, Washington understated the case; government is not and has never been a "servant" of the people, but only their master.

The Constitution was not a plan to "improve government." It was a plan to subjugate all lesser governments and their citizens under one federal yoke. The Articles of Confederation allowed for a much freer association of independent states, which would have offered individuals a diversity of political arrangements to choose from. An overriding federal government only counts as an "improvement" if you are a megalomaniac control freak.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition, http://www.amazon.com/Most-Dangerous-Superstition-Larken-Ros...

Liberty is government

Government can be as voluntary as is humanly possible

Describing how a Democratic Federated Republican from of Competitive Government did work, may help, if the idea is to understand an expedient method by which Liberty can become more powerful than Legal Crime.

I don't know how to say things more clearly.

Joe

Are you channeling George Orwell?

Freedom is Slavery! Liberty is Government!

If government were voluntary, it wouldn't BE government. Institutionalized coercion is many things, but "voluntary" is never one of them. This article may help you "get" this.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition, http://www.amazon.com/Most-Dangerous-Superstition-Larken-Ros...

Yes

Channeling

Probably not George

There is a power at work, have you ever heard of ectropy?

Joe

Specifics

Specifics

From that link I will take out 2 quotes as references concerning the State of Liberty here in our Country.

How did we get here, how can we get back to Liberty?

The spark that led to this angle of attack was generated by that aforementioned forum member Judge Bartley.

Judge Bartley sent me on a path to those few people who began their march to improve government way back in the time machine when The Articles of Confederation, with Legal Money Competition working, was deemed insufficient, by these few, even though it was sufficient enough to work as a guiding principle for those wishing to get rid of the largest Army in the Planet, as that Army plundered the countryside, enforcing their Legal Money Monopoly Power, that thing called a Monarchy, or in modern terms: Legal Crime.

Crime made Legal.

Judge Bartley sent me on that path to inspect those few who set about their goal of improving government from The Articles of Confederation to something better.

Here are two quotes from one of the people who was in on that design to improve government from The Articles of Confederation.

"Large concessions of the rights of sovereignty were thereby made to congress; but the system was defective in not providing adequate means, for a certain, and regular revenue; congress being altogether dependent upon the legislatures of the several states for supplies, although the latter, by the terms of compact, were bound to furnish, whatever the former should deem it necessary to require. At the close of the war, it was found that congress had contracted debts, without a revenue to discharge them; that they had entered into treaties, which they had not power to fulfil; that the several states possessed sources of an extensive commerce, for which they could not find any vent. These evils were ascribed to the defects of the existing confederation; and it was said that the principles of the proposed constitution were to be considered less as absolutely new, than as the expansion of the principles contained in the articles of confederation: that in the latter those principles were so feeble and confined, as to justify all the charges of inefficiency which had been urged against it; that in the new government, as in the old, the general powers are limited, and that the states, in all unenumerated cases, are left in the enjoyment of their sovereign and independent jurisdictions."

The age before the sound bite, I know.

Is there a correlation between the tolerance of giant walls of text and abject slavery to false governors?

I have my guesses.

I have my sound bites to work with too.

A.
Merchants of Death, also known falsely as Mercantilists, or War Profiteers are not new. This is a bread of your fellow man (or woman) whose job they feel they need to do is supply war materials through no bid contracts so as to really, really, really, stick it to the consumers of war, you know, the victims, since everyone, except a very few, pay for those wars, while those very few just happen to grow rich on war.

B.
Merchants of Death want to be paid in Gold, not that funny money.

C.
The money stolen, through war, is used to finance both sides of war, each new time, as this is the highest frequency, or perhaps the highest amplitude, of The Business Cycle.

Quote 2:

"The powers delegated to the federal government being all positive, and enumerated, according to the ordinary rules of construction, whatever is not enumerated is retained; for, expressum facit tacere tacitum is a maxim in all cases of construction: it is likewise a maxim of political law, that sovereign states cannot be deprived of any of their rights by implication; nor in any manner whatever by their own voluntary consent, or by submission to a conqueror."

If I have Judge Bartley read right, which may be a stretch on my part, that quote above is the part that Judge Bartley had in mind with his offerings on this forum.

According to the stated goals of almost all those who supported The Constitution, unless they spoke with forked tongues, the design of COMPETITION was the goal, even as the government was purposefully moved from The Articles of Confederation to The Constitution.

In other words: A State is voluntarily joined into the Union.

What does that actually mean?

Does it depend upon what is is?

Joe

Important distinctions

Specifics

"That the student may more clearly apprehend the nature of these objections, it may be proper to illustrate the distinction between federal compacts and obligations, and such as are social by one or two examples. A federal compact, alliance, or treaty, is an act of the state, or body politic, and not of an individual; on the contrary, the social contract is understood to mean the act of individuals, about to create, and establish, a state, or body politic, among themselves. … Again; if one nation binds itself by treaty to pay a certain tribute to another; or if all the members of the same confederacy oblige themselves to furnish their quotas of a common expense, when required; in either of the cases, the state, or body politic, only, and not the individual is answerable for this tribute, or quota; for although every citizen in the state is bound by the contract of the body politic, who may compel him to contribute his part, yet that part can neither be ascertained nor levied, by any other authority than that of the state, of which he is a citizen. This is, therefore, a federal obligation; which cannot reach the individual, without the agency of the state who made it. But where by any compact, express, or implied, a number of persons are bound to contribute their proportions of the common expense; or to submit to all laws made by the common consent; and where, in default of compliance with these engagements the society is authorized to levy the contribution, or, to punish the person of the delinquent; this seems to be understood to be more in the nature of a social than a federal obligation. … Upon these grounds, and others of a similar nature, a considerable alarm was excited in the minds of many, who considered the constitution as in some danger of establishing a national, or consolidated government, upon the ruins of the old federal republic."

If I am not mistaken that is an explanation as to why a Competitive Democratic Federated Republican form of Government must have Voluntary Association between State and Federal arms of that Government.

If, for example, a Nation State were to emerge from The Federal Government, and if those Legal Criminals were to then Directly Tax The People with such an abomination as a Federal Income Tax, or even worse: The employment of a Legal Money Monopoly by which Taxation would be fraudulently applied by way of "inflation", then, States could be driven by The People to Volunteer their sorry butts out of that criminal Nation State with it's overt and covert Direct Tax Enslavement Routine.

Note:

Ron Paul has at least 3 things on his to do list; with or without election into any office (as far as I understand the man).

1.
Eliminate the Federal Reserve System of Extortion (a fraudulent direct tax of each person who uses dollars)

2.
Eliminate the Federal Income Tax

3.
Bring the Troops home (those legal criminal won't like having their gravy train stopped before they get to profit from World War III, so The People may actually need our Military at home, as a deterrence)

You many want to know better.

Worse may be much worse than you can currently imagine into a sound bite.

Joe

By whose authority?

"To these objections the friends and supporters of the constitution replied,6 “that although the constitution would be founded on the assent and ratification of the people of America, ye that assent and ratification was to be given by the people, not as individuals composing one entire nation; but as composing the distinct and independent states, to which they respectively belong. It is to be the assent and ratification of the several states, derived from the supreme authority in each state, the authority of the people themselves. The act, therefore establishing the constitution, will not,” said they, “be a national but a federal act."

Did the few who wanted The Constitution ratified by-pass those people hired by The People to run their State Governments?

Did the few who wanted The Constitution ratified go directly to THE MOB so as to get their Legal Money Monopoly Enforced, despite their continued opinion that THE MOB can't be trusted with POWER?

Joe

Duplicity or Fraud?

"On trying the constitution by this criterion, it falls under the national, not the federal character, though perhaps not so completely as has been understood."

It is Federal, not National, don't worry.

It is National, not Federal, but don't worry as much.

Joe

Enough to prove the point.

“The proposed constitution, therefore, even when tested by the rules laid down by its antagonists, is in strictness neither a national nor a federal constitution, but a composition of both. In its foundation it is federal, not national; in the sources from which the ordinary powers of the government are drawn, it is partly federal, and partly national; in the operation of those powers, it is national, not federal; in the extent of them, it is federal, not national; and finally, in the authoritative mode of introducing amendments, it is neither wholly federal, nor wholly national.”

Forked Tongue

Joe